Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Police Officers

Mr. Simon Hughes: What representations he has received from chief constables about the number of police officers needed in England. [44241]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): As police authority for London, I have continuing discussions with the Commissioner about police numbers and other matters in the metropolis. Four chief constables in England made representations about various aspects of this year's police funding settlement, but none made specific mention of police officer numbers. Chief constables understand that, under legislation passed by the previous Government, it is for them to determine the number of police officers in their force on the basis of the resources available to them.

Mr. Hughes: The Home Secretary will, no doubt, have read the letter written, at the end of last month, by the

Association of Police Authorities that makes it clear that the level of Government funding over recent years has been insufficient to sustain police numbers. Given that numbers have decreased in recent years, will the Home Secretary tell the House whether the comprehensive spending review will guarantee that in each of the three years to come, for which it is responsible, there will be an increase in police numbers across England and Wales?

Mr. Straw: We made resources available to the police forces in England and Wales for this year that, to quote one of the chief constables who made representations to us,
were more than originally envisaged.
The hon. Gentleman will have to await the results of the comprehensive spending review, but I can tell him that, as at June 1998, police numbers in the Walworth and Peckham areas that he represents increased by 20 compared with last year.

Mr. David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that however many police officers are recruited, they should be able competently to investigate crime? Is he aware that many of us are shocked by the details of police incompetence and indifference that have emerged from the inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence? I praise my right hon. Friend for setting up the inquiry, but is he aware that when it is completed, many questions will be asked and certainly those in senior positions in the police force in London may be asked whether it is right for them to continue in their job?

Mr. Straw: I established the judicial inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence and surrounding matters under powers under the Police Act 1997. Given that the inquiry still continues, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on it until I have received the report.

Sir Norman Fowler: Contrary to what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) just said, is not the Home Secretary aware that the strength of the police in post


increased by more than 15,000, or 14 per cent., under the previous Conservative Government? However, the question does not relate to our record, but to what the Government will do. Will the Home Secretary at least give an assurance that when new legislation adds new duties to the police, he will recognise that there is an unanswerable case for more police on the ground?

Mr. Straw: One thing that we shall not do is make promises that we shall not fulfil. Police numbers may have risen up to 1992 by the relatively small percentage that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, but he forgot to mention that crime doubled in that period. Moreover, between 1992 and 1997, the previous Government promised that police numbers would rise by 5,000, but instead they fell by 765. We intend to ensure that police forces have the resources that they need, but we shall bear in mind the sage words of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), who said:
There is an enormous variation in the performance of police forces.
It is crucial that we deal with police forces' output, as well as their input.

Crime Victims

Mr. Andrew Dismore: What steps he is taking to ensure that the concerns of victims of crime are taken into account in the criminal justice system. [44242]

14. Mr. Ben Chapman: What recent steps he has taken to help victims of crime. [44256]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): We promised in our manifesto to improve the treatment of victims and witnesses. I established an interdepartmental working group on vulnerable and intimidated witnesses within two months of coming to office. Last week, I published its report. The report has more than 70 recommendations to give better protection to witnesses and victims and so ensure that more criminals are convicted.

Mr. Dismore: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that although there are good relations between the local Victim Support branch in Barnet and the local Metropolitan police, there are considerable difficulties with automatic police referrals of the victims of serious crime to Victim Support? That has resulted in some victims not getting the help that they need, owing to a rather restrictive interpretation by the Metropolitan police of the data protection rules. As the authority for the Metropolitan police in London, will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to ensure that they refer as many victims as they possibly can to Victim Support branches under the automatic rules?

Mr. Straw: I shall certainly raise the matter with the Commissioner, Sir Paul Condon. There is a difficulty in police forces across the country to do with differing interpretations of whether the Data Protection Act restricts the flow of information in the manner that my hon. Friend has described. The Crime and Disorder Bill, which has almost completed its passage through the House, should

clarify matters and enable police forces, without worry, to ensure that such information is passed on to Victim Support in appropriate circumstances.

Mr. Chapman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that victims of rape are an especially vulnerable group when they appear in court, and that urgent action is needed to support them? What steps does he propose to take?

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue, which causes concern throughout the House and across the country. He will be pleased to learn that the interdepartmental working group's report contains explicit recommendations in respect of prohibiting cross-examination by the defendant in person—with provision for the defendant to be given lawyer —and in respect of severe restrictions on the cross-examination of the victim's previous sexual history.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). The right hon. Gentleman will know that the anxieties of the victims of crime would be considerably alleviated if they knew that there was continuing support from the Government for local Victim Support schemes, not least in places such as Barnet, which do invaluable work. I understand that Barnet has the lowest crime rate of any London borough, but the service is still much needed and the Government's continuing support would be much appreciated.

Mr. Straw: I am pleased to give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that he seeks. As one sign of that, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced last June that the subvention for Victim Support this year was increased by £1 million. We greatly value its work across the country.

Sir Norman Fowler: What powers are there under existing law to compensate the victims of crime when the crimes are committed outside this country by people who usually live here? We shall obviously support any measures that the right hon. Gentleman takes against those found guilty of violence in Marseilles—their actions are obviously unacceptable—but what can be done to compensate the innocent victims of crime and make the guilty pay?

Mr. Straw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those remarks, with which I wholly associate myself and the Government. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I unreservedly condemn what happened in Marseilles yesterday and today. The whole country feels betrayed by the treacherous behaviour of this criminal element who so besmirch the name of English football and undermine our nation's reputation.
I spoke this morning with the French Minister of the Interior, Jean-Pierre Chevenement, and apologised to him for the disgraceful behaviour of the English hooligans, emphasising again our full support for the French police in dealing swiftly and vigorously with those who cause such disorder.
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that issues of compensation are primarily a matter for the countries in which the disorder and crime occur, but I am arranging for the matter to be discussed urgently with the French Minister of the Interior.

Public Events (Policing)

Mr. Peter L. Pike: What public events require the payment of policing charges. [44243]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Chief officers of police decide when to make a charge for providing a special police service, for example policing football matches. A charge is normally made where the event concerned takes place on private property, or is arranged by a commercial organisation, or the policing work falls outside the police's core duty to keep the peace and protect life and property.

Mr. Pike: Is not the Lancashire constabulary completely out of order in trying to charge football clubs in Lancashire for what is known as the reserve—police off the ground? That is a matter completely for the police, as it would be in the case of any public event. There is no dispute about the fact that police on the football ground are charged for, but those in the reserve and off the ground are a matter for the police to determine, and pay for themselves.

Mr. O'Brien: It is for the chief constable to decide policing needs. Forces should charge for officers deployed inside the ground, where the chief constable believes that they are necessary to preserve order, and for any reserves that are needed in order to do so. The courts and the Taylor report on the Hillsborough disaster endorsed that view. Officers deployed outside the ground are usually there at public expense, even if they are marshalling fans towards the ground. I understand that one of the issues at Burnley is whether officers held in the reserve outside the ground are to be included in the charging provisions. I hope that those issues can be resolved locally, as they have been elsewhere.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Minister agree that the football clubs who pay those charges, and the police, have, by their co-operation, achieved a remarkable improvement in behaviour surrounding English football, and that many of the people who have caused trouble in the past are no longer to be seen at English football matches? When so much has been achieved, is it not that much greater a matter of concern that a travelling circus of drunken hooligans, some of whom may have had neither the intention nor the hope of attending an England football match in France, are giving the game a bad name?

Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman is right. Much good work has been done by football clubs and the police—and by the House, with restriction orders and so on—to improve the position at football grounds in our country. It is shameful that the behaviour of a minority of the fans who have gone to France for the football match have besmirched the name of English football. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, we need to ensure that we co-operate with the French, to tackle these people—the right hon. Gentleman rightly chides me for describing them as fans—who go abroad and damage our country's reputation.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Given the earlier exchanges, and the great effort that has been made to

exchange with other policing authorities information about football hooligans, is the Minister not a little worried that, in this case, there seems to have been some failure of intelligence, or of the application of intelligence? Although we do not want to be wise before we know all the facts, is it not extremely important that we examine, with the French and other authorities, whether there is some failure to translate information into action?

Mr. O'Brien: We have kept in very close contact with the French authorities via the National Criminal Intelligence Service and by direct contact between the Interior Ministry in France and the Home Office here. Liaison has been very good. We have exchanged information available to us about people who are likely to cause problems, and at the moment our information is that the French authorities have acted very well on that. There is no evidence that there has been any failure on the French authorities' part to deal with those issues.
We believe that we have simply been let down by those people who have gone to the match from England. In a sense, we owe an apology to the French for the behaviour of some of the people that have travelled from England to France. We need to ensure that we continue that co-operation with the French authorities; we are committed to doing so.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was near enough a racing certainty that there would be trouble as soon as the match was designated for Marseille? It was an open invitation to the English National Front to fight the French National Front.

Mr. O'Brien: There are no excuses for the way in which the fans have behaved. We know from experience of British football matches that, all too often, extremist right-wing organisations—such as the National Front and the British National party—engage some of their supporters in disruptive behaviour surrounding matches. We need to ensure that we have in place the means of dealing with those elements, and that we keep the French authorities informed about any information that we have about extremist right-wing elements that may be seeking to encourage English fans to behave disruptively.

Crime (Chelmsford)

Mr. Simon Burns: If he will make a statement on the level of crime in the Chelmsford area. [44244]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): In 1997, 9,339 offences were recorded by the Chelmsford police division. That is about 10 per cent. lower than the level of recorded crime there in 1996.

Mr. Burns: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Essex police and neighbourhood watch schemes on that impressive fall in crime, which contradicts the soundbites from Home Office Ministers about rising crime and shows that in the last few years of the previous Government, crime overall was falling? Does the Minister share my concern that in the previous financial year, £1.1 million was allocated for the creation of 55 extra constables in Essex, but the money was used to create


only 28 extra officers? Will he liaise with the Essex police authority to find out why we did not get the full number of police constables?

Mr. Howarth: First, I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Essex police. Crime in the county has fallen by 11 per cent. to 90,158 offences. That compares with a fall of 9 per cent. across England as a whole. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, as he has just congratulated the chief constable, I am sure that he will agree that it is for the chief constable to decide how to deploy his resources. The hon. Gentleman just said that those resources had been deployed effectively, so I am not sure what his point is.

Young Offenders (Parents)

Mr. David Drew: What steps he will take to ensure that support and guidance is given to the parents of young offenders. [44246]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Our radical reform of the youth justice system will ensure greater focus on support and guidance to parents of young offenders. We are introducing parenting orders to encourage parents to accept their responsibilities for their children's behaviour. These orders will allow courts to direct that parents exercise control over their children, and require parents to receive training and guidance.

Mr. Drew: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent Audit Commission report, which highlighted the serious shortcomings in the juvenile justice system? With that in mind, how will he respond to the report and, in particular, deal with the minority of serious offenders who clearly need much more help from their parents?

Mr. Straw: The recent Audit Commission report, which brought up to date the findings of the Audit Commission in 1996, painted a lamentable picture of the state of the youth justice system. Our proposals in the Crime and Disorder Bill represent the first stage of our major reform of the youth justice system. One way in which we shall deal with persistent young offenders is by the fast track for persistent offenders. I am pleased to tell the House that, although at the last election there were only eight pilot schemes for fast-tracking such offenders, there are now more than 100 schemes.

Mr. Richard Allan: The new parenting orders to which the Home Secretary referred may be a useful tool in combating crime, as long as they distinguish between parents who will not parent and those who simply cannot parent. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that, through guidance and other measures, he will ensure that the parenting orders do not set individual parents up for failure, when it is apparent that their circumstances make it impossible for them to control their children?

Mr. Straw: If there are parents who cannot parent, they should not have responsibility at all for their children, and those children ought to be in the care of the local authority. The overwhelming majority of parents must accept responsibility for their children. That responsibility lasts as long as the children are children.
The purpose of our proposals for parenting orders is to ensure that parents no longer seek to excuse their own behaviour and lack of control of their children or the behaviour of their children who are young offenders, and accept that all too often their children's misbehaviour is partly to do with their own failure to exercise proper control over those children. Such parents will be offered advice and guidance on how to improve their parenting skills.

Young Offenders

Mr. David Hanson: What plans he has to reduce the level of crime committed by young people. [44248]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The Crime and Disorder Bill includes a number of proposals to help reduce the level of crime committed by young people. These plans are intended to nip offending behaviour in the bud, to reduce delay and to achieve better co-ordination of youth justice services.

Mr. Hanson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, on some estates in my constituency, young people are still abusing many of my constituents physically and verbally? Those young people are involved in criminal behaviour, such as vandalism, and the Government's proposals will certainly tackle such problems. Will my right hon. Friend look, in the longer term, at the reasons for social exclusion so that we may begin to integrate those young people into society at large?

Mr. Straw: We accept that we must tackle the underlying causes of social exclusion. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has established the social exclusion unit, and a raft of programmes, from the welfare-to-work programme to provisions in the Crime and Disorder Bill, are under way. They will give the police and local education authorities special powers to tackle truancy on the streets.
However, we know also that many of those who live in deprived areas and who are socially excluded commit no offences whatsoever. Therefore, it is very important that we do not excuse the misbehaviour of a minority and ensure the rapid passage and enforcement of the measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill that are designed to tackle bad behaviour by both juveniles and adults.

Mr. Peter Viggers: May I congratulate the Home Secretary on his authoritative and statesmanlike response to the previous question, which placed responsibility for the conduct of young people firmly upon their parents? They should not be allowed to resile from that responsibility. Does the Home Secretary agree that closed circuit television systems have proved extremely effective in identifying criminals and preventing crime? I thank him for the closed circuit television systems that have been developed in the main town centre area of my constituency and in Stubbington. Does the Home Secretary agree that they are cost-effective and should be encouraged further?

Mr. Straw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for both parts of his question. There is no doubt that closed circuit television systems that are properly planned,


properly introduced and properly monitored can have an important effect on reducing crime and disorder and, above all, on reducing people's fear of crime and enabling them to use public space better.

Ms Hazel Blears: The Home Secretary will be aware of the task force that has been established to tackle crime and disorder in Langworthy in my constituency of Salford. That task force involves Government, council, police and Victim Support working together to tackle the huge problems in that area. Will the Home Secretary confirm that the task force and local people—many of whom are good, law-abiding citizens—will continue to have the Government's full support in trying to improve their community and make it a safer place in which to live?

Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friend knows, I am aware of the deep concerns of the residents in the Langworthy area of Salford as a result of my visit there two months ago. The task force that has been established to tackle serious problems in that area—not the least of which is criminality by a minority—enjoys the Government's full support. It is a very good example of the kind of inter-agency co-operative working that is the best approach to reducing crime and disorder in such areas in the long term.

Mr. John Greenway: In their five early pledges, the Government promised to cut youth crime by halving the time that it takes to bring young offenders to court. How early is early? Where is the evidence of any progress in that area? Will the Home Secretary confirm that the Government do not expect to meet that pledge, as so many of their proposals—he referred earlier to the first stage—have yet to be tested and there are no new resources for the police or the probation service with which to implement them? This is the fourth early pledge that the Government have broken. When will the Prime Minister have the confidence to publish his report on the Government's first year achievements? If and when he does, will it not show that things have got worse rather than better?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman should hang his head in shame for coming to the Dispatch Box to talk about youth crime when the Government of which he was a supporter presided over a situation where more and more young criminals committed crimes and fewer and fewer went before the courts. It has fallen to us to tackle the problem. The hon. Gentleman asks when we will do so. The powers that we have to take to implement the proposals have not even gone through this House yet. It was one of the first Bills we introduced and, with luck, it will become law before the end of July. Serious progress will be made then. When we took office, we found—contrary to the synthetic comments that we have just heard—that the previous Government did not even collect information on the number of persistent young offenders, still less do anything about it. One hundred pilot areas have been established, and we will implement that pledge—like the rest of the manifesto—well before the next election.

Mr. David Borrow: In my constituency, the overwhelming concern is juvenile crime. At a meeting

with the local police on Friday, I found that they—unlike Tory Members—were convinced that the Crime and Disorder Bill would do much to deal with juvenile crime. Does my right hon. Friend agree that my constituents would be much better listening to the concerns and views of the local police in South Ribble than to the carping comments of Tory Members?

Mr. Straw: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. His constituents and mine have the benefit of the care and service provided by the Lancashire constabulary. It was not least because of concerns raised by Lancashire police over many years that we developed the proposals in the Crime and Disorder Bill for anti-social behaviour orders and the raft of reforms of juvenile justice.
On resources, one of the things that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) failed to notice in the Audit Commission reports of 1996 and last month is that not only do so many persistent young offenders get away with it—thanks to the inefficiency of the system that the previous Government left us—but that millions of pounds is wasted as a result of that inefficiency. Our changes are designed to ensure that more persistent offenders are dealt with more swiftly, and that resources are far more adequately and efficiently used.

Indecency Offences (Children)

Mr. John Bercow: What plans he has to increase the maximum sentence for indecency with children. [44249]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): The maximum penalty for gross indecency with a child aged under 14—which is different from indecent assault—was increased by this Government from two years to 10 years' imprisonment as recently as 1 October last year when we brought into force section 52 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. We have no evidence to suggest that a further increase in the maximum penalty is needed. However, we do need to make sure that the system of offences and penalties is coherent and effective. I can tell the House today that we will review the law relating to sexual offences generally and we will look at this specific issue as part of that review.

Mr. Bercow: Would the Minister explain to the House why the Government opposed the Conservative amendment to the Crime and Disorder Bill to increase from 10 years to life the maximum sentence for indecency with children, when this would have left the freedom with the courts to pass an appropriate sentence and would have allowed the more serious offenders to be released only when they no longer posed any threat to any children? Is this not a case of the Government being soft on criminals and tough on the child victims of those criminals?

Mr. Michael: No, Madam Speaker—it is a case of a Back-Bench Member being tough on the English language and soft on his thinking. Only last year, the Conservative party thought that 10 years was a perfectly adequate sentence. With the irresponsibility of Opposition, it wants to make everything subject to a life sentence. The reason we turned that down—as I explained in Committee, as the


hon. Gentleman will see if he takes the trouble to read Hansard—was because it was our intention to have a coherent review of the offences and the penalties to make sure that sexual crimes, particularly against children, were dealt with effectively, properly and coherently. We will do that.

Ms Sally Keeble: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and the changes that have been made to penalties for sex offenders. Is he aware that some of my constituents will welcome very much the changes—for example, the family of Jason Swift, who was killed by a member of the Cooke gang? What thought has my hon. Friend given to introducing indeterminate sentences to make it possible for sex offenders to be kept in prison for as long as they are a risk—a much more effective way of dealing with the problem than simply introducing blanket, long-term sentences which would not address the main problem?

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right. The horrific example to which she referred makes it clear why we must take responsibility, not only for punishing people after the event, but for managing risk and for ensuring that risk does not turn into danger or an event involving a victim. We have already implemented the Sex Offenders Act 1997, and we have worked with the police and the probation service to make sure that the information required under it is used to protect children and vulnerable adults, rather than gathering dust on file or sitting in a computer.
The sex offender orders in the Crime and Disorder Bill will plug a further gap by enabling courts to take action where it is clear that someone poses a risk. We shall consider indeterminate sentences in the review that I have announced. My hon. Friend understands the sensitivities that have to be observed and the careful thought that has to be given to the matter. We shall give it that thought.

Sex Offenders

Miss Julie Kirkbride: What plans he has to change the licensing arrangements when releasing sex offenders from gaol. [44250]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Ms Joyce Quin): The Crime and Disorder Bill makes provision for the extended supervision of offenders following release from prison. The Bill gives the courts power to order additional supervision of up to 10 years in those cases. Offenders will be liable to be recalled to prison if they breach their licence conditions.

Miss Kirkbride: I thank the Minister for that answer, but I draw her attention to a case in my constituency in which a convicted paedophile was released into a small village community on a licence condition lasting only four months. I understand from a previous answer that the Government reject the Conservative option of optional life sentences, but will she consider whether there are, in those revolting cases of sexual abuse of children, grounds for licensing conditions on release to be extended as far as the natural life of the offender, when the relevant authorities consider that that person still poses a risk to the community?

Ms Quin: The hon. Lady has written to me about that case, and I have responded. She is to meet the agencies

in her area which, I understand, are co-operating effectively to try to cope with the situation in respect of the individual concerned. Our proposals in the Crime and Disorder Bill will make the situation much more satisfactory. The sex offender orders are liable to apply to that individual if he appears to present a risk, and, indeed, to other individuals. The measures in the Bill, including the sex offender orders and extended supervision, will go a great way towards tackling the problem.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: Some sex offenders have had two or three cases brought against them, served different sentences and been released back to the same community again and again. Will my hon. Friend examine those cases and what goes on in prison, and will she consider the issue of psychiatric care and the concerns about that?

Ms Quin: There are sex offender treatment programmes in prison which have been shown to be effective. We are conducting research into the way in which they have been carried out to discover what further lessons we can learn. It is also important that the prison and probation authorities work closely together. That is one reason behind the Government's prison and probation review: we believe that, in areas such as risk assessment and exchanging information about people who have been in prison and who are under supervision in the community, the two services could do a great deal in co-operation to reduce risk to the community.

Sir Norman Fowler: Further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) said, may I draw the Minister's attention to the case of Roger Gleaves, the self-styled bishop of Medway, who was convicted in the mid-1970s of offences against young people? Two months ago, he was sentenced to 15 years for further offences against young people. Is not the lesson of that case that information of past offences was available, but was not passed on, not only to organisations, but to the parents of the young people? If there was a central register, which I support, would the information on it be publicly accessible?

Ms Quin: The important point is for the agencies that manage cases to have the information and to share it between them. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point that information has not always been transmitted between agencies as it should have been. Our approach, particularly the partnership approach, is aimed at improving the flow of information so that people do not fall through the net and the system works effectively in the public's interest.

Police Management

Mr. Barry Sheerman: What steps he is taking to improve the strategic management capacity of police forces. [44251]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): Since 1992, all applicants for appointment in the most senior police ranks must have attended the strategic command course at the police staff college, which is intended to develop and enhance senior officers'


capacity to exercise strategic management and leadership. We are considering how best to promote continued training and development for those who achieve Association of Chief Police Officers ranks.

Mr. Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the training of senior managers in the police force tends to be exclusive and inward-looking, and that good management is good management? Is not it about time that we started to expose senior police officers to the best management schools in the world, if not in the country, because strategic management is strategic management?

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Some senior officers have gone to great lengths to expand their own training and experience, and to look at the quality of management developed outside the police service, while others have not. My right hon. Friend and I, with officials and ACPO, are looking at how we can develop the quality of training. As I said in my first reply, we are considering how to encourage and improve continued training and development once officers achieve ACPO rank.

Prisoners

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If he will estimate the impact of the implementation of the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords] on the prison population in the next three years. [44252]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Ms Joyce Quin): The prison population will always largely depend on the sentencing decisions of the courts. The provisions of the Crime and Disorder Bill will help to target the use of prison on serious offenders. The Government's policies are aimed at early effective intervention to turn young offenders away from crime and possible later imprisonment. Home detention curfew in the Bill is intended to free up some 3,000 prison places a year.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister consider the Bill's effect on the provision of prison places for serious sexual offenders? Will she assure the House that a serious sexual offender will never be released from prison earlier than he or she would otherwise have been if he or she is considered for electronic tagging, and that that would not be an acceptable reason for releasing serious sexual offenders earlier?

Ms Quin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have said that serious sexual offenders would not qualify for home detention curfew unless there were exceptional circumstances. It is important to bear in mind the fact that, in general, home detention curfew will operate only after a stringent risk assessment.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: If there is a shortage of prison space as a result of the implementation of the Bill, why do we not substantially reinforce the resources available to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which will meet in Birmingham and which is responsible for establishing whether there have been miscarriages of justice, as I believe happened in the case of Owen Oyston? If the commission were given the resources, the inevitable consequences would be that more

people would be released from prison, more spaces would become available and we would be able to deal with any additional offenders who were put into custody.

Ms Quin: We have increased the availability of prison spaces to accommodate people sent to us by the courts. The Government strongly support the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and very much endorse its approach and work. However, in terms of the prison population, we believe that home detention curfew plus the other measures that the Government support, such as effective use of community sentences, are the best way for the criminal justice system to proceed in the future.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: Does the Minister accept that members of the public believe that the prison sentence passed should be the prison sentence served? What message are the Government sending to the public by introducing measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill whereby although maximum sentences of six months are passed in magistrates courts, no defendants will ever serve more than six weeks if they behave properly?

Ms Quin: The Government are committed to enabling the courts, when sentence is passed, to tell people exactly what that sentence means in practice. We feel strongly about that because it is important for the public to know that information. The hon. Gentleman seems to object to the home detention curfew. It will mean a reduction in prison places, and we think that it is right because it involves a managed transition from custody to release. The structure that it imposes on offenders is one of its most valuable aspects.

Ms Beverley Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is now imperative to have a range of stringent, community-based sentences that inspire the confidence of the public and sentencers because they are not easy options? What measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill will promote such sentences? How will sentencers be encouraged to use them?

Ms Quin: The probation service will have new responsibilities under the Crime and Disorder Bill, which will show the public that community sentences are worth while and effective. The action plan order and the reparation order will be particularly significant. Other important sentences will be served in the community under other orders in the Bill, such as the drug treatment and testing order.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the hon. Lady recognise that recent legislation, including that on mandatory sentencing, is contributing to a relentless rise in the prison population, which is likely to consume resources needed for rehabilitation inside and outside prison? Many of the good measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill will require resources to be put into the probation service. If those resources are instead consumed by prison spending, we shall not be able to do the job that needs to be done.

Ms Quin: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have a responsibility to imprison people who are sent to us by the courts, and that we must imprison serious offenders. However, the Crime and Disorder Bill contains


many effective measures that, through the emphasis on early action and intervention, will have a helpful effect, especially on young people. We hope that they will deter them from crime and, ultimately, imprisonment.

Mr. James Clappison: Does not the risk assessment guidance say that in the prison population as a whole, prisoners will usually be eligible for home detention curfew and early release? Does that not drive a coach and horses through the principle of honesty in sentencing? As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Matins) said, sentences will not mean what they say. What else can right-thinking members of the public conclude when a sentence of six months' imprisonment, which is the maximum that can be passed by magistrates courts, will mean in practice only six weeks spent in custody? How can that engender public confidence in sentencing?

Ms Quin: First, the courts will spell out what sentences mean in practice. Secondly, I invite the hon. Gentleman to take a closer look at some of the electronic monitoring schemes in this country and in other parts of Europe. Schemes such as the home detention curfew are extremely effective in providing punishment for people and preparing them for ultimate release. The system that we are introducing will be tough and effective.

Crime and Disorder Bill

Mr. Keith Darvill: What plans he has to pilot provisions contained in the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords]. [44253]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): We plan to pilot a number of initiatives to tackle youth offending, such as measures to tackle delay in the youth justice system; the drug treatment and testing order; and the use of live television links between prison and court. Provided that the Bill receives Royal Assent before the summer, we plan to commence those pilots in the autumn.

Mr. Darvill: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I also thank him for taking the time recently to visit Harold Hill in my constituency to witness the work of the partnership that is evolving between the police, the local authority and other agencies, including London Transport Buses. Does he agree that the best way to tackle crime in our towns and cities is through genuine partnerships with local communities, police and other organisations?

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right. However, as we saw when I visited his constituency, the process cannot be easy or immediate. There needs to be a commitment on the part of police and local authorities; they need to win the support of the local community, and they need to listen to members of that community, who best know the type of crime that spoils their lives. A commitment to such a partnership, and to cutting crime, is essential, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he is encouraging that in his constituency.

Khat

Dr. Jenny Tonge: What representations he has received urging a ban on the sale of that. [44254]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): We have received one letter this year suggesting that khat should be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. If, however, there is any new evidence on the matter, I shall be happy to consider it with a view to a further reference to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which last considered it 10 years ago.

Dr. Tonge: I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that khat is an addictive drug that causes stimulation of the person taking it, leading to euphoria and hallucinations? The person ends up stoned and unable to do anything. Is it not nonsensical that that drug can be legally imported and have value added tax charged on it, when cannabis—a much safer drug in these terms—cannot even be used for legitimate medical purposes, although many doctors are calling for that to be allowed?
Does not the Minister consider the position slightly ridiculous? In view of the failure to make any progress in the drugs war, will he set up a royal commission immediately to investigate the use and misuse of drugs?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Lady will know that khat is regarded as coming within the terms of the Medicines Act 1968.
With the Liberal Democrat party, the needle sometimes seems to get stuck. The hon. Lady trots out the same old line that her party has been trotting out for several years. She asks for a royal commission, but the decriminalisation or legalisation of cannabis would have only one result: more people would use it. If the hon. Lady wants to contemplate such a development, that is her business; the Government certainly will not.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Is not the lesson clear—that the prohibition of khat would not decrease but increase its use? It would increase the amount of khat crime, and would drive a wedge between the Somali and Yemeni populations and the police.
The use of all banned drugs increases. Why do not the Front-Bench Members of the two main parties, and all the other parties, take an intelligent look at what is happening in Switzerland, for example? Drug-related crime in Zurich has recently been reduced by 80 per cent.; meanwhile, in this country it has increased by 30 per cent. In Holland, owing to a policy of decriminalisation, there are virtually no heroin users there under the age of 20, and the number of adult heroin users has fallen.
The lesson is the same throughout the world. America, which has had a prohibition policy for many years, now has the worst drug problems in the world, and we in Britain have the worst drug problems in Europe. When will the Government set up a royal commission, so that we can reinforce the point that prohibition increases drug problems and decriminalisation reduces them?

Mr. Howarth: If my hon. Friend wants to use international examples, he should consider Amsterdam. Its drug policy is far more lenient than ours, and its murder rate is three times higher.
My hon. Friend should not assume that he has a monopoly on intelligence about these matters. A wide body of evidence from throughout the world suggests that, if any currently illegal substances are decriminalised or too soft a line is taken on them, there can be only one outcome: more people will use those drugs, more people will be drawn into crime and there will be more serious social problems. The option offered by my hon. Friend, the Liberal Democrats and even some Tory Members is not viable. It simply would not work in this country, and it has not worked in any other country.

Prisons (Commercial Activities)

Mr. Howard Flight: If he will review the financial arrangements for commercial activities carried out within prisons. [44255]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Ms Joyce Quin): The financial arrangements for commercial activities within prisons were recently reviewed, and I am pleased to announce that governors have been given increased flexibility in the use of income from commercial activities. That should enable them to use some additional income from increased industrial activity, which should further the goal of expanding prison industries—a goal to which the Government are firmly attached.

Mr. Flight: My question was prompted by a recent visit to the Ford establishment in my constituency. In that establishment, commercial activities such as horticulture, metalwork, woodwork and laundry work do not have the investment capital that would enable them to bid for contracts. The trustees and the head of the prison told me that all the revenues were retained by the Treasury. Will the proposed changes specifically address the streamlining of investment decisions to gain maximum scope from commercial activities in prison?

Ms Quin: The changes that I have announced will help reinvestment so that prison industries can expand in places such as Ford. I also understand that Ford is likely to take part in the workshop expansion scheme, which is an important part of our efforts to increase workshop activity within prisons.

Young Offenders

Mr. Piara S. Khabra: What steps he is taking to ensure that there is early intervention with young offenders to prevent reoffending. [44260]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): The Government are introducing a number of early intervention measures as part of their youth justice reform programme. These measures include the child safety order, local child curfews for children under the age of 10 and the final warning scheme for those above the age of criminal responsibility. New requirements for district or borough-based crime reduction strategies and new youth offending teams will provide a new focus for local action to cut crime. We are also providing new powers to allow the police to deal with truants.

Mr. Khabra: Is my hon. Friend aware that the recent Audit Commission report on youth crime describes the

previous Government's appalling record in this area? Does he agree that truancy and exclusion are major causes for the commission of crime and reoffending by children? What steps is he taking to help parents to control their children's behaviour? Will he ensure that parents, and especially working parents, of children who do not go to school are given the support that will enable them to send their children to school?

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right to highlight truancy and school exclusion as problems. That is why the Government have looked at the matter across Departments and why the social exclusion unit gave it priority in its work. We have introduced in the Crime and Disorder Bill an amendment that will give the police the power to pick up youngsters and take them either back to a school or to another agreed place when they do so in partnership with education authorities. Making such a link between different problems and ensuring that local solutions are produced in partnership are two of the ways in which to remove the scourge of youth crime.

Drugs and Crime

18. Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: What recent research he has commissioned into the link between drugs and crime. [44261]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): Current research includes work on the criminal life styles of crack addicts; on the effects of treatment on addicts' criminal behaviour; and on developing performance indicators for police anti-drugs strategies. Consideration is also being given to extending a project on drug testing and interviewing arrestees, the first results of which were published in April.

Mr. Fitzpatrick: I remind my hon. Friend of a recent visit to my constituency by Mr. Keith Hellawell to examine a ground-breaking drugs initiative called Project Charlie at Culloden school. Its aim is to educate young children on the dangers of drugs. Does my hon. Friend agree that education is the way forward rather than the approach that has been advocated by the shadow health spokesman, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), whose support for the legalisation of all drugs is surely irresponsible and simplistic? He should be asked to withdraw that support.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right. He will recall that I made a similar visit to his constituency some time ago. Part of the new strategy that Mr. Hellawell announced recently is to concentrate resources on helping young people of primary school age and older to resist the messages on drugs. My hon. Friend is right to note that in a book called "Saturn's Children", the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) said:
The only completely effective way to ameliorate the drug problem, and especially the crime which results from it, is to bring the industry into the open by legalising the distribution and consumption of all dangerous drugs, or at the very least by decriminalising their consumption.
My hon. Friend might reflect on the 0fact that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton is now an Opposition Front-Bench health spokesmen.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill

1ST ALLOTTED DAY

Considered in Committee.

SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair

Clause 1

SENTENCE REVIEW COMMISSIONERS

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 1, line 7, leave out
'and one of them shall be appointed chairman'
and insert
'and shall appoint one of the legally qualified Commissioners as the Chairman'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 26, in page 1, line 10, leave out from 'lawyer' to end of line 11.
No. 18, in page 1, line 18, leave out 'any jurisdiction' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.

Mr. Ross: This will prove to be an interesting debate because, on Second Reading last week, we were promised that the Government would look very carefully at what was said and that we would be given the chance to probe and to get a clearer understanding of what exactly the Government are trying to do. Before the rise of the House this evening, we shall try to educate the country about what the Bill does.
As the sentence review commissioners will apply what will become a complex area of law that will give rise to all sorts of allegations and cause much heartache, they need a legally qualified individual as chairman. That should be in the Bill. The pressures to let out that group of prisoners will be immense. We know the problems that arise whenever there is a backlash from the IRA or other terrorists groups. An immediate effort is made to find a way to placate them. We can be certain that the pressure will not decrease but increase over coming weeks and months. We shall be told that we should not be worried about the words in the Bill or their legal meaning but should proceed in the spirit of the agreement and that that will be what counts.
Many people in Northern Ireland and, I am sure, many hon. Members, will not be happy with the spirit or understanding that will be applied to the measure by the thugs and murderers with whom we have to deal in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom. The pressures, not least on the Government, from the Irish Republic and the terrorist organisations will be immense. The pressure from the Government on the chairman and commissioners when a well-known prisoner is up for release will also be immense. Pressure will be put on and signs given that that prisoner should be released. Given that, we need a person of strong character, good personality and sound judgment to stand up to those pressures.
We have not yet been told the exact composition of the commission—such as how many commissioners there will be; how many commissioners will be from Northern Ireland, from Great Britain, from Commonwealth nations or—more likely—from the Irish Republic; how many will be appointed at the instigation of the Government of the Irish Republic, through Maryfield; or how many will be appointed who have to be acceptable to the IRA or other terrorist groups. A whole series of questions have simply not been answered, but we have to know those answers. We have to know also that the person appointed as chairman will be someone who can stand up to the pressures that will be put on the commissioners.
Amendment No. 46 has not been selected, but it is relevant to other amendments. Section 1(2) provides not only that
The Secretary of State shall so far as reasonably practicable ensure that at any time—
(a) at least one of the Commissioners is a lawyer",
but that one commissioner shall be expert in the mental health or psychology of the prisoners dealt with by commissioners. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that, given some of the deeds that those prisoners have committed, there is good reason for including psychologists or other professionals in psychiatric treatment on panels. I hope that the Secretary of State will ensure that there is at least one lawyer and one mental health professional on each panel dealing with a prisoner's case.
The other amendments in the group, which were tabled by the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), would accomplish the same objectives that I shall try to achieve in other amendments that I have tabled. I hope that all those amendments will be favourably mentioned by Ministers, and that the Government will accept them.
The spirit of the agreement and of the Bill is such that the folk who will be most closely examining them are those who have been most directly affected by terrorist violence in Northern Ireland—over many years, they have been the victims and targets of that terrorist violence. Therefore, everyone in Northern Ireland, and all those who are further afield and take an interest in the matter, will want to be certain in their own mind that every care has been taken before any one of those individuals is released prematurely into the community.

Mr. David Maclean: Amendment No. 26 would delete clause 1(2), which requires that, of the commissioners,
at least one is a psychiatrist".
I merely say to Ministers: God help us if more than one commissioner is a psychiatrist.
I should like to delete that provision for the simple reason that, based on my experience as a Minister in the previous Government, I do not think that the professions of psychiatry and psychology have anything to contribute in determining the important matter of releasing people who are potentially dangerous and could, in future, return to their terrorist ways.
My experience in government has led me to distrust psychiatrists' advice on whether it is safe to release a prisoner. The relevant experience—which the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office will not share—for me in


the matter was dealing with prisoners who had committed some of the most appalling crimes of violence, but who, because of their mental health, were in some of the United Kingdom's most secure institutions, or in second-level secure institutions, such as Rampton and Broadmoor. For various technical legal reasons, approximately half of those prisoners are eligible to be released by a mental health review tribunal. The MHRTs not only contain a fair proportion of psychiatrists, but rely heavily on psychiatrists' advice. The other half, approximately, are released by Ministers of the Crown exercising their judgment.
The Minister can check the veracity of this in Hansard, but if he analyses the number of prisoners released by the MHRT and those released by Ministers over the past 10, 15 or 20 years, he will discover that the reoffending rate of those released by an MHRT is about twice that of those released by Ministers. One could do an interesting analysis of why Ministers, who are not qualified psychiatrists but who take into account subjective judgments and who analyse reports from psychiatrists and advice from civil servants, have a 100 per cent. better success rate than an MHRT in judging the dangerousness of people being considered for release. Having done that task for some time, I can conclude only that all Ministers—those before me and, no doubt, those after me—were and are more reluctant to rely on the advice of psychiatrists alone. The only skills that I thought psychiatrists brought to the operation were incredible naivety and gullibility.

Mr. Phil Willis: First, is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that no psychiatrist should give advice to Ministers? Secondly, is it his reading of the Bill that the only advice that the commissioners will have at their disposal is that from those commissioners who are psychiatrists? That is not my reading of it.

Mr. Maclean: The Bill provides that one of the commissioners shall himself be a psychiatrist, and that is the bit I am not happy about because I think that he would exercise undue influence over the other commissioners. It is the same in any circle when someone pops up and says that he is a doctor or a lawyer and that his opinion is therefore more important than that of the common herd. Insisting that one of the commissioners shall be a psychiatrist will give his opinion undue weight. I believe that psychiatrists' opinions are more suspect than those of other members who could be appointed and who are not schooled in that discipline but who are nevertheless capable of reading reports from psychiatrists and making their own judgment.
Of course commissioners must have advice from psychiatrists, if appropriate, on the mental health of some of the individuals whom they are contemplating releasing. I hope and assume that they will get advice and reports from the Prison Service on prisoners who have been in the Maze. I assume that they will get reports from the Royal Ulster Constabulary and various other quarters and that they will come to a balanced judgment.
The grave danger in allowing psychiatrists to hold a position of undue influence is that psychiatrists are obsessed with insight. Most of the time, the advice from psychiatrists that I considered rather dodgy was offered when psychiatrists were beguiled by the prisoner, who

suddenly said that he had got insight and realised that he had been wrong. He would say that he could now face up to his crime and was therefore eligible to be released. When a prisoner had that remarkable insight, acknowledged his crimes and said that he wanted to lead a straight life, it counted very highly with psychiatrists, whereas people with more balanced judgment did not give that insight so much weight. I shall no doubt receive letters from eminent psychiatrists complaining about my criticism of them as a genus or breed.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Having had experience of psychiatrists and psychologists over more than 30 years as a practising barrister, I endorse almost everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said about their comments and the effect that they have. Extraordinary gullibility is the hallmark of many of those who practise that rather bizarre form of medicine.

Mr. Maclean: I should not go so far as to call it a bizarre form of medicine. I am saying only that, during my time as a Minister, in many of the cases that came to me, the advice from psychiatrists was bizarre in the extreme. In the case of someone who had been in a mental hospital for 20 years, exhibiting dangerous qualities for 19 of those years and then showing insight for nine or 10 months, they recommended to Ministers that he should be released.
The statistics on the success rates of releases tell the story. Ministers, from whatever party, have to show their judgment, without necessarily having any great knowledge of, or qualification in, psychiatry. Of course they must not close their ears to advice from all quarters, but they must come to an opinion and make a judgment.
The same is true of the commissioners. I should prefer a commissioner who does not have a law degree or a psychiatry degree, but instead has a sound grounding in common sense, having experience of working in industry or dealing with people in some other capacity. I want them to be good judges of human nature. Some clever criminals who have not been convicted of terrorist offences come before parole boards and review boards in the rest of the United Kingdom. They are highly adept at spinning a tale about how they are now reformed. We need commissioners who are capable of seeing through some of the wiles of those who will come before them. In my experience, qualified psychologists and psychiatrists are not the best at seeing through the wiles and the devious nature of some of their clients.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I have spent more than 30 years at the Bar and have cross-examined and read reports from hundreds of psychiatrists and psychologists. Much of what the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has said is commensurate with my experience. The Bill implies that psychiatry and psychology are interchangeable terms. They are two distinct sciences. Most reputable psychologists will say that their reports are not meant to make a diagnostic decision. They draw conclusions from a series of tests and methodologies. Almost invariably, a reputable psychologist will end his report by saying that his findings may be consistent with a condition but are not necessarily diagnostic of it, because there may be many medical conditions that can produce the same results.
I have been married to a practising psychologist for 37 years, so I have a domestic insight into reports and comments—and perhaps my wife has a domestic insight into me, but that is another matter.

Mr. Clive Soley: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman can assure us that he is talking about a marriage, not some special client relationship.

Mr. McCartney: My wife would find more fertile fields in other characters.
There is a bland assumption in the Bill that psychiatry and psychology are interchangeable. That is so far removed from the practice of the disciplines as to make one wonder who was responsible for the drafting of the Bill and whether they were in need of either of those disciplines.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: During my career, I have read many legal opinions and I often wondered whether those who wrote them were themselves head cases and perhaps should have been referred to psychiatrists or psychologists. However, it ill becomes hon. Members to denigrate trained professionals who, in different capacities, have served their patients and the community well. It is a foolish thing to do.
First, I shall comment on what the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said about deleting psychiatrists and psychologists from the list. In my view, he misinterpreted the purpose of the Bill. Politically motivated prisoners resent the idea that psychiatrists or psychologists should be brought in to pontificate on, or judge, their offences; they believe that their offences were politically motivated and that they should be judged on that basis. However, some people who may have been involved in such offences may suffer from mental disturbance, and it may not be safe for them to be released without more specific and direct conditions than those being applied by the commissioners. I view the measure as a defence for the public rather than an easy way out for certain people.
My second point relates to amendment No. 18 in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. It proposes that the lawyers appointed to the commission should not be from any jurisdiction other than that of the United Kingdom. I would regret that, as it suggests that we cannot learn from other common law jurisdictions such as those in Canada, America, New Zealand, India, South Africa and others with experience in such matters. The amendment implies a deliberate intention to prevent the appointment of anyone who might have had experience in South Africa in respect of the problems associated with peace and reconciliation and the amnesty committee. By cutting ourselves off from the experience of other jurisdictions as a deliberate decision to be insular about the issue, we would show that we did not appreciate how much we could learn from others. Our experience within these islands is not particularly special. Others have had to face similar difficulties and perhaps we can learn from them.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: I shall speak to amendment No. 18, which was tabled by me and my right hon. and hon. Friends. It relates to clause 1 and seeks to leave out "any jurisdiction" and replace it with "the United Kingdom".
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) asked why we should allow a lawyer from any jurisdiction to be appointed. The Secretary of State's response was somewhat evasive. She said:
I do not want to tie myself down".
She then attempted to clarify what she meant by that, but muddied the waters still further when she said:
It is 99 per cent. likely that a lawyer with expertise in our criminal legal system would be of UK origin".—[Official Report, 10 June 1998; Vol.313, c. 1088.]
However, that is not what she was asked. It is obvious that, in most instances, one of our own people would have the relevant expertise, but that was not the question. The Secretary of State did not address the valid point posed at the time as to which jurisdiction would be involved. She did not say that an intimate knowledge or expertise of UK law would be a prerequisite to serving on the commission. From her remarks on Second Reading, one would have thought that she was saying that the required expertise had to be within the realm of UK law, but she did not say that, and it is not a prerequisite in the Bill.
Clause 1(2)(a) simply requires that at any time
at least one of the Commissioners is a lawyer".
Subsection (5) defines a lawyer as
a person who holds a legal qualification in any jurisdiction.
The Secretary of State did not promise that in 99 per cent. of cases the appointed lawyer would be from the United Kingdom. That issue is vital, and we query why the Bill is drafted in that way.
We need only the very best legal interpretation of UK law—not European law or the laws of Congress or the Dail—on imprisonment and sentencing. I take issue with the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who asked why we cannot learn lessons from other common law jurisdictions. We may well learn from them, but it seems to me—if I am wrong, no doubt the Minister will put me right—that the main reason for having a lawyer on the commission is that he or she can interpret clearly for its other members the meaning of United Kingdom law on those important issues. It is not a question of learning from other jurisdictions. We want someone who can give the best interpretation and analysis of our law.

Mr. David Winnick: Lawyers practise in other countries. Is there not a danger of our being a little too parochial? George Mitchell, a very respected former United States senator, carried out an important role as chairman of the talks, and was highly praised by all concerned, including the Opposition. Should we not work on the assumption that the lawyer, in the unlikely event that he or she were not a UK citizen, would be fully conversant with UK law?

Mr. Moss: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the wording of subsection (5). The Bill redefines a lawyer to mean a person who holds a legal qualification in the United Kingdom. That person could be of foreign origin as long as he or she had a legal qualification in this country. That is the most important point on that subsection.
Why do the Government not feel able to trust a member of our legal profession to serve honourably and with distinction on the commission? Who could possibly have an objection to that lawyer having a UK qualification? Is that another concession? Has pressure been brought to bear concerning whether our lawyers can be trusted? The Minister should tell us why the Bill has been drafted in this way, and we look forward to his answer.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The amendments relate to various aspects of the appointment of commissioners. We have sought to ensure that the members and chairman of the sentence review body have the appropriate range of skills and expertise to conduct their business thoroughly and effectively. I am sure that all Members of the House, even those who object to the Bill, want that to be its overriding principle.
It is also the Secretary of State's intention to ensure that the commissioners command widespread acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland. That, too, is an important principle to establish. All too often, when the Government decide the membership of certain bodies—no matter how eminent or experienced the people involved are—they find themselves the subject of criticism.

4 pm

Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the Minister seriously suggesting that the fact that a commissioner is required to have a qualification in the legal system within which the tribunal will sit might not find acceptance in the minds of reasonable people? On the other hand, is he suggesting that such a qualification would make impartiality an impossibility in the eyes of a person who might make an application to the commission?

Mr. Ingram: Perhaps I should not have given way to the hon. and learned Gentleman—my next point covers his. I was speaking generally about the structure of the new body, not about the amendments.
Amendment No. 18 would require that one of the commissioners should have a legal qualification from the United Kingdom. As the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, there is every sign that that would be likely in any event. Having heard the arguments advanced today, and having decided what we consider right, I can tell the Committee that I am prepared to accept the amendment; but I stress that the person so appointed would not be an adviser to the body but would act as one member of that body who has legal expertise and knowledge of the jurisdiction on which he or she would be asked to comment.
Only in his very last sentence did the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) acknowledge that the Bill refers not just to psychiatrists but to psychologists. He launched what I can only describe as an argument based on narrow prejudice against psychiatrists—I do not know what he bases that on. He seems to believe that psychiatrists should never be involved in judging criminals or prisoners: politicians, he thinks, invariably get it right, while psychiatrists always get it wrong. That is a rather unsound argument, based, as I say, on the right hon. Gentleman's narrow prejudices.
By stipulating that at least one commissioner should be a psychiatrist or a psychologist, we are showing that risk assessment is an important aspect of what the Bill is

designed to achieve. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border seems concerned that the view of a professional psychiatrist, used to undertaking risk assessments, will always prevail over the views of other members of the commission. Are we saying that the legally qualified person serving on the sentence review body would be unable to dissect and understand the psychiatrist's arguments? I am sure that lawyers do so all the time, when they handle difficult cases, and sometimes they are obliged to cross-examine such people. It is important, however, that one of the commissioners is expert on dealing with risk assessment in criminal cases, so we have inserted that prerequisite in the Bill.
On that basis, I ask hon. Members not to support amendment No. 26, but I would prefer the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border to withdraw it. I note, in passing, that my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made telling points in defence of psychiatrists and psychologists and the usefulness of their expertise.
Amendment No. 45 would require one of the lawyers appointed to the sentence review body to be its chairman. Although we would not wish to preclude the appointment of a chairman with a legal qualification, which is a distinct possibility, I do not believe that we should require that. I understand part of the argument that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) advances. We are trying to give the commission a coherent structure. When it is formed, we shall make appointments to it on the basis of individuals' expertise and knowledge. In doing so, I would not want my hands to be tied by a requirement that the chairman be a lawyer, because the person so appointed would be not an adviser to the body but a member of it, and their opinions would have equal weight—although I suspect that, in terms of legal interpretation, the lawyer's opinions would have greater weight because of that person's expertise. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the argument and withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: The official Opposition are extremely grateful to the Minister for accepting amendment No. 18. I broadly share his view that, although it might be helpful for the lawyer to chair the commission, it would be too restrictive to stipulate that the chairman be a lawyer. On behalf of the official Opposition, I accept that it is best to allow flexibility and leave the matter open.

Mr. William Ross: I listened to the debate with care, because this group of amendments, although the first, is important. Although I would not share all the views of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), I believe that, if we asked the general public what they thought about what are broadly termed headshrinkers, a sight more of them would lean toward the right hon. Gentleman's views than would agree with either of the Front-Bench Members who have spoken.
So many horrific crimes have been committed by individuals who should not have been, but had been, released from prison. That theme needs to be handled with very great care. It appears that the psychiatrists and psychologists are concerned with the prisoner as a patient, and probably tend to look on him or her as a patient.
When documentation arrives on Ministers' desks, they must consider it in the context of the public good and the danger to members of the public; in those circumstances,


they are right to be exceedingly cautious. As a result of being cautious, the Minister sometimes gets it wrong, but the matter should not be treated lightly.
For that reason, I believed that it would be well if such an area of expertise were available to the commission in every case. The commission will deal with many people who have committed horrendous acts. Some may have done so under the influence of drink, drugs and so on, but others are obviously mentally unstable, and we need to be very cautious about whether some of them ever get out of prison. In Northern Ireland, crimes have been committed by people who, if they had not been allied to terrorism, would probably have been given a somewhat different sentence. They might have been detained at Her Majesty's pleasure or possibly even declared unfit to plead. Because of the terrorist situation, though, I do not know whether anyone charged with a terrorist crime has ever been found unfit to plead. Perhaps the Minister could tell me whether there has been such a case. I wonder what the attitude of the courts and the prosecuting authorities would have been towards folk charged with committing a crime that was not related to terrorism.
I listened with interest to what the Minister said about the chairman needing appropriate skills, expertise and knowledge. He spelled that out in more detail when he went on to say that each member of the commission would give advice based on his skills, knowledge and training.
My argument that the chairman should have a legal qualification fits perfectly into that. To some extent, the chairman can be seen as a judge in a court, who must provide a summing up, give legal guidance, tease out what has been said and consider all the evidence that has been presented. He must do that in conjunction with the panel of commissioners, all in very difficult circumstances.
That is why I believe that a person with legal training—perhaps a fairly senior member of the legal profession, such as a solicitor or barrister of long standing, a judge or a magistrate—who deals with such matters daily could give such guidance and pull together all the evidence that has been presented. He must be able to express an opinion, listen to the opinions expressed by others and guide the panel to a sensible conclusion.
I did not table the amendment lightly. In many ways, the panel is a judicial body, even if we are not calling it that, and the chairman is sitting in the role of a judge. I believe that the Government are deliberately leaving open the possibility of appointing people from outside the United Kingdom, and almost certainly appointing individuals who have a legal qualification in the Irish Republic. That, I am certain, is the purpose of the Bill, and I object to it. There may be many people outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom who have a knowledge of UK law, but for every one in that position, there are 100 or 1,000 in the United Kingdom who have a clear understanding and who are perfectly capable of guiding the commission.
My amendment does not call for the chairman to be from any particular United Kingdom jurisdiction: there are three legal jurisdictions, and I would not care from which one he came. I believe, however, that the chairman

should have a measure of loyalty and commitment to the laws of the United Kingdom, rather than to finding a method of letting the gunmen out.

Mr. Maclean: I listened to the Minister, and I am sorry that he chose to be a little churlish in some of his remarks to me. If we are to make progress this afternoon, it ill becomes the Minister to be as disrespectful as he was; nor should he try to put words into my mouth.
The Hansard record will show that at no time did I suggest that Ministers always got it right and everyone else got it wrong—far from it. However, I repeat that on the occasions when Ministers had to release people, they had a success rate twice as good as that of the professionals who were heavily advised and relied completely on psychiatric advice. Both groups got it wrong, but Ministers in this Government will no doubt also have a better success rate when making the same sorts of judgment. That was my point, and the Minister did the Committee a disservice by trying to put words into my mouth and to attribute to me remarks that I did not make.
My comments did not convey any narrow prejudices. I had no dealings with the psychiatric profession before I became a Minister. The difference between the Minister and me is that he brings his brief to the Chamber and I bring my experience from having done the job for a while. Home Office Ministers have an awful responsibility when faced with a file and the prospect of releasing someone who may offend or kill again. Ministers also have a responsibility to recall reoffenders to prison.
We have had some experience of this sort of situation, and I have moved my amendment regarding psychiatrists purely on the basis of my experience. I do not do so because of any narrow prejudice, as the Minister has suggested. When he has been in his job a little longer, the Minister will perhaps have the right to accuse other hon. Members of that—but I do not think that he has earned that right yet.
Clearly, I will not be able to make progress with my amendment today. I have no intention of dividing the Committee and wasting time when we must consider other very important amendments before the guillotine falls. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Chairman: I should point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not in order for him to do that. The lead amendment belongs to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross).

Mr. William Ross: I did not withdraw my amendment because I thought that other hon. Members might wish to speak to it and that the Minister might like to respond. If he is not prepared to do so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 18, page 1, line 18, leave out 'any jurisdiction' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.—[Mr. MacKay.]

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

APPLICATIONS

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 50, page 1, line 24, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 51, page 1, line 24, after 'application', insert 'only'.
No. 52, page 1, line 24, leave out '(and only if)'.
No. 7, page 1, line 25, leave out from 'for' to 'life' in page 2, line 1.
No. 55, page 1, line 25, leave out 'for a fixed term'.
No. 33, page 1, line 25, after 'term', insert 'or for life'.
No. 53, page 1, line 25, after 'term', insert 'imposed by a court'.
No. 34, page 1, line 26, leave out
'the first three of the following four'
and insert
'all of the following five'.
No. 54, page 1, line 26, leave out 'the first three of'.
No. 29, page 1, line 26, leave out 'three' and insert 'five'.
No. 30, page 1, line 26, leave out 'four' and insert 'six'.
No. 35, page 1, line 27, leave out from 'satisfied' to end of line 2 on page 2.
No. 31, page 2, line 2, leave out 'four' and insert 'six'.
No. 57, page 2, line 6, after first 'a', insert 'member of or a'.
No. 58, page 2, line 7, leave out 'terrorist' and insert 'proscribed'.
No. 59, page 2, line 8, leave out 'immediately'.
No. 60, page 2, line 10, after 'of, insert
'or remain a member or'.
No. 61, page 2, line 10, leave out 'terrorist' and insert 'proscribed'.
No. 62, page 2, line 11, after 'concerned', insert 'with or involved'.
No. 63, page 2, line 12, leave out
'connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland'
and insert
'within or connected with the affairs of the United Kingdom'.
No. 8, page 2, line 12, leave out
'connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland'.
No. 25, page 2, line 14, at end insert—
'(6A) In determining whether a prisoner would be a danger to the public the Commission—

(a) must have regard to any opinion submitted by the Chief Officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; and
(b) must not rely only on psychiatric or psychological opinions arrived at after interviews with the prisoner.'.

No. 28, page 2, line 14, at end insert—
'6(A) The fifth condition is that the terrorist organisation to which the prisoner belonged (or any successor or sister organisation of a different name) has substantially decommissioned weapons.
6(B) The sixth condition is that the prisoner has completely renounced the use of violence for good.'.

No. 36, page 2, line 14, at end insert—
'(6A) The fifth condition is that the prisoner has renounced violence and is willing to comply with any order made by the Secretary of State requiring him to fulfil community service of such a nature and for such a duration as the order may specify.'.
No. 64, page 2, line 16, leave out '10th April 1998' and insert '31st August 1994'.
No. 20, page 2, line 16, at end insert
'and in respect of which the applicant was charged before 10th April 1998,'.
No. 79, page 2, line 19, after '1996', insert
'or was committed by a member of Her Majesty's armed forces in the course of his duties while serving in Northern Ireland'.
No. 80, page 2, line 19, leave out from '1996' to end of line 22.
No. 10, in clause 5, page 3, line 40, leave out 'and third' and insert 'third and fourth'.
No. 72, in clause 9, page 4, line 33, after 'not', insert
'remain a member of or'.
No. 73, page 4, line 33, after 'terrorist', insert 'or proscribed'.
New clause 1—Warrant of Chief Constable—
'Notwithstanding the provisions of section 3, no prisoner shall be released if the Secretary of State receives a warrant from the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary certifying that in his opinion the prisoner is still an active supporter of a terrorist organisation, whether or not it is specified under section 3(8).'.
New clause 2—Renunciation of violence—
'.—Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 3 no prisoner shall be released unless he has sworn on oath to renounce violence for good nor support any organisation which advocates or uses violence.'.

Mr. Ross: I hope that I am not expected to speak to all the amendments and new clauses, as only about half belong to me. However, I have read them all with interest, and, by and large, they address the same general problem regarding conditions of release. I shall run swiftly through those standing in my name, so that the Committee may understand my intentions.
Amendment No. 50 proposes to omit the word "shall" and insert the word "may" in the appropriate place. That would create a measure of discretion, which is currently absent from the Bill. Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 correct the Bill's drafting, which I suspect is not quite right. I invite the Minister to accept my changes, but, if he is happier with what he has put down, I will have no great problem with that.
The Bill refers only to fixed terms, but amendment No. 55 and several other amendments propose that the same standards should apply to all those who are seeking release, whether they have fixed terms, life sentences or an indeterminate sentence. I see no good reason why individuals who come before the commission should not be on an equal footing, and have to fulfil the same conditions before they are released.
Amendment No. 53 proposes to restrict "prisoners" to those subject to sentences passed within Northern Ireland. If someone has committed a crime outwith Northern Ireland, and if sentence is passed on them elsewhere in the UK, he or she is in another jurisdiction. Therefore, an individual convicted in the Republic of Ireland, for example—or perhaps even in Germany or another foreign state—should be outwith the scope of the Bill.
I wish to refer to amendments Nos. 54 and 35. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) tabled similar amendments, not knowing what I was doing. The amendments follow amendment No. 53, and propose that all the conditions must be met in each case.
Amendment No. 57 simply tries to widen the scope from a supporter of a violent terrorist organisation to include membership of that organisation. In Committee, the Secretary of State ran into difficulty on the question of what was "terrorist" and what was "proscribed". My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) asked about the position of someone who belonged to a proscribed organisation but was not treated as a terrorist. That seemed to us to set up a strange situation, which we could not understand.
Amendment. No. 58 would change the Bill to include membership of a proscribed organisation. Those organisations are all listed, and can be added to by the Secretary of State. The Government could get into an awful mess if they do not treat all the bodies on the same footing, and apply the same description to all of them and their members.
Amendment No. 59 proposes to leave out the word "immediately". I do not see why the measure should be introduced only immediately. The commission must look beyond the immediate effect of someone getting out, and consider what that individual will do next week, or in three months' time. The Bill should take a longer view.
I hope that the Minister has noted that amendment No. 60 should read
or remain a member of',
as the amendment paper, as printed, has the final word as "or". There is evidently a typographical error. The amendment would widen the scope of the Bill to provide that someone who got out of prison was not only associated with or a supporter of a proscribed organisation, but remained a member of that terrorist proscribed organisation. I simply cannot understand why the word "proscribed" has not been used throughout the Bill, and I hope that we will get a clear explanation.
Amendment No. 63 again tries to widen the scope. The Bill as drafted talks about terrorism
connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland".
The terrorist campaign has been concerned with the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. To say, therefore, that the Bill is concerned only with the affairs of Northern Ireland seems restrictive. In those circumstances, we should widen the measure to include acts connected
with the affairs of the United Kingdom
and take the nation as a whole. That would extend the scope to include terrorist actions carried out against the British Army in Germany or British possessions overseas which would be concerned with the UK—but, in particular, with Northern Ireland with regard to the Bill. The Government must consider the Bill and the amendments carefully, because many of the amendments are extremely helpful to what they are trying to achieve and should be accepted. The other amendments in the group simply hark back to the area issue, to which I have referred.
The Government have been far too hidebound in their approach. They should have given the matter wider consideration and encompassed all terrorist organisations. The commissioners should have a measure of discretion, and we should restrict the provision to that which lies within the jurisdiction of our own courts, rather than pull in sentences passed by other courts, because commissioners could not be aware of all the evidence produced in such courts.
Those are my reasons for tabling the amendments. I hope that others who have tabled other amendments will clearly explain the reasoning behind them.

Mr. Moss: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 10.
Amendment No. 7 would mean that clause 3(2)(a) would state:
the prisoner is serving a sentence of imprisonment in Northern Ireland and the following four conditions are satisfied".
We should carefully consider the Government's distinction between fixed-term prisoners and those serving a life sentence. The Bill makes a clear distinction, with three of the four conditions in clause 3 applying to those on fixed terms and all four applying to those on life sentences.
The last condition, at clause 3(6), is the most crucial:
The fourth condition is that, if the prisoner were released immediately, he would not be a danger to the public.
Why have the Government assumed that only life prisoners could be a danger to the public? Lifers could be less likely to be a danger or to cause problems once they were released, because the prospects of reincarceration would be far more serious than for those on fixed terms.
Some fixed-term prisoners may be far more committed to terrorism and to the cause than their colleagues on longer sentences, including life sentences. On conviction, it may not have been possible to make more serious charges stick to such prisoners, perhaps through lack of evidence, but it may have been deemed to be in the interests of society in Northern Ireland to take them out of circulation, and the prosecution may have gone for a lesser charge to secure conviction.
We strongly question why the Government have made a distinction between fixed-term and life prisoners, especially in respect of the fourth condition. We are not persuaded that all fixed-term prisoners are not likely to be a danger to the public if they are released early, and I should be interested to hear the arguments to the contrary. The amendment makes it clear that any prisoner serving a sentence in Northern Ireland must meet all four conditions set out later in the clause.
Amendment No. 8 would leave out the words
connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland".
The question is simple: should we think of releasing prisoners who the commission believes could
become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism"?
The Bill goes on to use the words
connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.
If we end the clause with the word "terrorism", it makes much more sense, because it is just as important that someone released from prison under the Bill should not join a terrorist group that operates either in mainland


Britain or elsewhere in the world. Our friends in other countries would be distinctly unimpressed if we were to release prisoners who happened then to join other terrorist organisations around the world.
4.30 pm
Perhaps the Government intended the words
connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland
to embrace mainland Britain, but it seems unnecessary to be that pedantic. If the subsection ended with the word "terrorism", it would include prisoners likely to join terrorist organisations elsewhere in the world.
Amendment No. 10 is a consequential amendment.

Mr. McNamara: If we took out those words, would it not allow someone imprisoned in Northern Ireland and involved in middle east terrorism to apply for the benefit of the legislation?

Mr. Moss: No, that does not apply, because, in subsection (3), the first condition is that the sentence must have been passed in Northern Ireland for a qualifying offence. An offence of terrorism in the middle east would not qualify under that subsection.

Mr. McNamara: A scheduled offence is a qualifying offence—that is all.

The Chairman: Order. I had not appreciated that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) had sat down. I call Mr. Peter Robinson.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I wish to speak in support of four amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and me, and supported by other hon. Members. They fall into two categories. However, before I deal with them, I seek clarification on a point of procedure.
It would be helpful, Sir Alan, if you could say what mechanism there is for Members from Northern Ireland to divide on amendments that are not lead amendments. It is not unreasonable for Northern Ireland Members to expect to have some Divisions on amendments which they feel are important. However, the draconian guillotine procedure that the Minister has stampeded upon us, with an outrageously short time to deal with a significant Bill, means that, within an hour, we must dispose of dozens of amendments. Moreover, if we discuss the amendments, we shall take up our voting time.
Hon. Members from Northern Ireland find that most unsatisfactory. We must protest about the way in which the Government are handling this legislation. We should not be surprised about the Government's approach, because they have entered into an agreement, and it does not really matter what hon. Members think about the basis of the Bill. The Government will push it through, because that is the agreement that they have signed.
The amendments that we have tabled fall into two classes. Amendment No. 33, in common with a number of other amendments, would require prisoners to be dealt with in precisely the same way whether they are serving a life sentence or a fixed-term sentence.
Why should someone in prison for a fixed term be entitled to go before the commission without satisfying the fourth condition, which is that, if he were to be

released, he would not be a danger to the public? We should all be satisfied that a prisoner, whether serving a fixed term or a life sentence, is not a danger to the public. Perhaps the Minister will explain the tortuous reasoning that would allow a fixed-term prisoner to be released even though he may be a danger to the public.
Prisoners must meet the four criteria in the Bill. The other amendments that we have tabled seek to add a fifth condition. The necessity for that fifth condition arises from the fact that the four conditions in the Bill relate not so much to the individual behaviour or state of mind of the prisoner who is to be released as to the fact that he is a prisoner—which is fairly evident if he is to be released—and that he is part of an organisation. Under the Bill, if that organisation is not on the list of terrorist organisations specified by the Secretary of State, the prisoner is capable of being released, provided he satisfies the requirement that, as part of that organisation, he will not resume or assist in the preparation of acts of terrorism. Amendment No. 36 would require that prisoner to satisfy the commission that he or she has renounced violence.
Furthermore, having satisfied the commission that they have renounced violence, prisoners should show some regret for their crimes by putting themselves at the disposal of the Secretary of State for some form of community service. Prisoners should not be able to walk out of prison as unreconstructed terrorists without having regretted any of the offences for which they were in prison. They should not expect to go on to the streets and to go back to whatever it was they were doing. The amendment would require prisoners to change, and to show that they are willing to be assimilated into society and to repay their debt to society.

Mr. William Ross: In tabling amendment No. 36, the hon. Gentleman no doubt recalls that, during the 1956–61 IRA terrorist campaign, individuals were interned for the duration, but it was possible for those who were prepared to give an undertaking that they would no longer be involved in violence to be released. Now, at the end of a very long period of terrorist violence, the hon. Gentleman is asking for exactly the same thing to happen. That seems to me to be entirely reasonable.

Mr. Robinson: It is worth saying that the criteria in the Bill fall into two categories. Some deal with issues relating to the prisoner, whereas the provision that we are about to come to relates to the definition of a terrorist organisation.
I do not think that any prisoner should be allowed simply to walk out of gaol because his organisation claims to have a certain status. According to the Bill, it is the behaviour of the individual, not that of his organisation, which will determine whether he returns to prison. It is therefore vital for the commission to be given a clear undertaking that the individual is willing to comply with any order issued by the Secretary of State in connection with community service, has expressed regret for his crimes, and has renounced violence for good.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I want to speak specifically about amendment No. 7.
The Bill provides for a distinction between prisoners serving fixed-term sentences and those serving life sentences. That distinction is arbitrary, irrational and


illogical. Not infrequently, those serving life sentences—although technically guilty of murder, for which the law prescribes only life imprisonment—are what are known in the business as "gofers". They have been involved in conspiracies, keeping a watch, picking up vital information to identify targets, and driving cars containing the weapons handed over to those who carried out the actual murders. Technically, all those people are guilty of murder, but some—this may be, indirectly, an argument in favour of prisoner release—were very much on the periphery of hard-core terrorist violence.
On the other hand, many people serving fixed-term sentences were hard-core terrorists, involved in a series of terrorist crimes that do not, however, require the imposition of a life sentence. One of the most notorious loyalist terrorists, Adair, was convicted of a host of terrorist offences, but, as I recollect, was not sentenced to a life term—although the judge who sentenced him considered him to be one of the most serious terrorist criminals to have come before the courts.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: Is not the point that he orchestrated, devised and encouraged acts of terrorism, rather than being personally involved in their commission?

Mr. McCartney: I am grateful for that helpful intervention. Adair was certainly involved in such activity, although I believe that he was also involved in much of the other kind.
Attempted murder is another issue. Let us suppose that someone is caught planting a large bomb, with the intention of causing the death and mutilation of a number of people—a bomb like the Enniskillen bomb, for instance. That person is charged either with attempted murder, which does not carry a mandatory life sentence, or with being in possession of explosives with the intention of causing serious physical harm, which also does not carry a life sentence.
Such a person may have been involved in a series of offences. He may have a long record of terrorist involvement. Yet, because he has been given a fixed-term rather than a life sentence, he is absolved from the fourth condition. We are dealing with people whose psychiatric or psychological background should cause them to be deemed hard-core terrorists, who are likely to be recidivists of some kind, but who will be absolved from the condition that,
if the prisoner were released immediately, he would not be a danger to the public.
Because such people are fixed-term prisoners, the criterion whether they are likely to be a danger to the public if released is thrown out of the window.
The Committee should not approve such an arbitrary and illogical distinction. It does not protect the public at all, although, if I understand the conditions correctly—particularly the fourth condition—the object is to protect the public from dangerous criminals who are likely to remain dangerous criminals, and, in such a capacity, to cause harm and danger in future. I support amendment No. 7, which makes all four conditions applicable not just to those sentenced to life imprisonment, but to those sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment.

Mr. Maclean: I want to speak to amendments Nos. 25 and 28 and new clauses 1 and 2, which I tabled.
Amendment No. 25 states:
In determining whether a prisoner would be a danger to the public the Commission… must have regard to any opinion submitted by the Chief Officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; and … must not rely only on psychiatric or psychological opinions arrived at after interviews with the prisoner.
I am worried about the fact that the Bill does not seem to provide for the chief officer's opinions to count in any regard.
Clause 3(6) merely states:
The fourth condition is that, if the prisoner were released immediately, he would not be a danger to the public.
What evidence must the commissioners have before reaching such a conclusion? As my amendment suggests, I fear that they may rely too heavily on the result of psychological or psychometric testing or risk assessment conducted by psychologists or psychiatrists. Let us suppose, however, that they adopt other means of determining whether the prisoner is likely to be a danger to the public. Are they entitled to hear submissions from the Northern Ireland Office? Can the Minister tell the commission that he has information suggesting that the individual may still be a danger to the public, irrespective of the conclusions that the psychiatrists may reach?
What if the RUC has information relating to the prisoner, which convinces the chief officer that he is likely to be a danger to the public? Can he submit that information to the commission, and is the commission entitled to take it into account?
The Bill does not give enough flesh to the rather bland condition that,
if the prisoner were released immediately, he would not be a danger to the public.
The legislation should provide for the views of those with experience, or a reliable opinion on whether the prisoner would be a danger to the public, to be taken into account. That should be their entitlement.

Mr. Robert McCartney: No doubt, given his ministerial experience, the right hon. Gentleman is familiar with the following circumstances. A number of individuals are jointly charged. Some—generally those on the periphery of the offence—make statements of admission that may even involve the trigger man, the man who shot the victim. Because that man is a confident, hard-core terrorist, however, he does not say a word, and is subsequently discharged. That information is within the knowledge of the senior police officer, and—being information about the nature of the individual to be released—ought properly to be supplied.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. His intervention raises an additional question, which I hope to be able to raise on Wednesday: the question of the reasons that may be given to the prisoner. In many instances, the safety of RUC officers and other members of the security forces could be gravely endangered if they supplied information suggesting that a prisoner was a danger to the public, knowing full well that, if the commissioners decided not to release that prisoner, they would have to give reasons for his not being released.
The Bill is silent on the protection that will be afforded to sensitive security information. That may be cast-iron, vital information that reasonable commissioners would conclude should not result in someone's release. However, the RUC might be afraid to give it, because their security operations would be compromised.
Amendment No. 28 is a key one. I am approaching decommissioning from a slightly different route, and that will be further discussed in the next debate. It is crucial for the Bill to state that no prisoner shall be released until the terrorist organisation to which he belonged or any successor organisation, whatever it chooses to call itself, has substantially decommissioned its weapons. I suspect that some Northern Ireland terrorist organisations will evolve or go through name changes as their lawyers find ways to pick holes in the legislation.
I am merely trying to put into legislation the Prime Minister's commitment to the House on 6 May, and no doubt his oral commitment to Northern Ireland Members on other occasions. It would be extraordinary—people would find it obscene—for the Government to go ahead with the Bill without an amendment to link the decommissioning, or the substantial decommissioning, of weapons with terrorist releases.
My amendment does not even state that all weapons must be surrendered before any terrorist is released. It merely uses the Prime Minister's term, "substantially decommissioned weapons." I fail to see how any reasonable person could find that amendment unreasonable. I hope that the Minister will accept it as a condition in clause 3, or that he will accept the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay).
My new clause 2 again approaches the problem from a slightly different route. Nowhere does the Bill state that a prisoner must swear an oath that he has renounced violence for good. The Minister may say, "So what? If he intends to return to violence, he will swear to anything. He may say that he will be a good boy." As the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) suggested, he may agree to do community service. The Minister may say that an oath will not stop people from returning to violence. I know that it will not stop a person who is dedicated to returning to violence, but it is another hurdle that a prisoner has to overcome if he is to convince the commissioners that he has given up violence for good. It is a sign of good faith by a prisoner that he has renounced violence for good.
I shall not push the Government to the death on the new clause, but it makes a valid point, and the Government should explain why they do not think that it is necessary for a prisoner to renounce violence for good and take an oath to that effect.
I stress the importance of amendment No. 28, which would ensure that a prisoner would not be released until the terrorist organisation to which he belonged had started the process that the Prime Minister promised the House—that that organisation has substantially decommissioned its weapons. The condition should not be that the organisation has entered talks that may one day lead to the setting up of a committee of yet more foreign experts, which might lead to decommissioning. It should not be said that prisoners should be released because that great process has started.
The Prime Minister told the House that of course terrorist organisations should substantially decommission their weapons before prisoners are released. I am simply trying to take the Prime Minister at his word, and build it into the Bill.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: Amendment No. 20 is in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). Clause 3(7)(a) lays down a requirement that a qualifying offence is one which
was committed before 10th April 1998".
We seek to add the words
and in respect of which the applicant was charged before 10th April 1998.
It is important to draw a line somewhere in the process. The Bill as drafted applies to those who are still at large, and who may in due course be charged with a crime that was committed before 10 April. That opens the prospect of many more convicted terrorists qualifying under the Bill than are currently in prison.
No one has yet been charged with many of the terrorist crimes committed in Northern Ireland, including some of the most serious crimes over the past 30 years of terrorist violence. For example, no one has been charged with offences in connection with the bomb in Enniskillen on Remembrance Sunday 1987, which killed many innocent people. Under the terms of the Bill, if at any future time a terrorist is charged with an offence in connection with that bombing, he or she will qualify under the terms of the Bill for accelerated release.
Clause 10(6) states:
In the case of any other sentence passed after the day on which this Act comes into force, the accelerated release day is the second anniversary of the start of the sentence (disregarding custody before the sentence was passed).
That means that the people who exploded the Enniskillen bomb, who murdered 11 innocent people, will serve no more than two years. That is totally unacceptable in a democratic society. I hope that the security forces will continue to pursue the people who exploded that bomb, and that they will be charged, and, if guilty, found guilty. Our amendment would ensure that they would not qualify for accelerated release, because it would be a mockery and a travesty of justice if the people who committed that atrocity served only two years.
I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the amendment, and will agree that we need to draw a line somewhere. If we do not, where does all this end? No one has been charged with about 70 per cent. of terrorist offences in County Fermanagh. We are debating potentially hundreds of terrorists who have yet to be charged with crimes and who could qualify under the Bill. We are debating not just prisoners but many other terrorists who have never been apprehended for their crimes. Our amendment would mean that terrorists who are charged after 10 April and convicted of serious terrorist offences that were committed before that date will not qualify.
I use that crime only as an example. There are countless other murders in Northern Ireland for which no one has been charged. It would equally be a travesty of justice for each and every one of those murders if the people who committed them were subsequently charged with and convicted of murder, perhaps multiple murder,


and released after only two years. That would say to the people of Northern Ireland including the victims of the Enniskillen bomb that those lives were worth just two years in prison. What does that say about justice? I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.

5 pm

Mr. McNamara: I listened with interest and much sympathy to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), but the Committee is getting into a major difficulty in seeking to rewrite an agreement that has already been signed. I understand the desire of those who are not party to the agreement to alter and wreck it; that is perfectly proper. But it is a bit off for those who have signed up to it—who jumped on the tails of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and said, "Me, too. Can I go to Northern Ireland to take part in this great campaign to get the agreement carried?"—to seek to rewrite it. I put that in a way that might be accepted as parliamentary; it will do for the time being.
I want to deal with some of the points raised by the amendments. It is wrong—as, for example, is suggested in new clause 1—to give the police the final say on whether a person should be released. That is internment under a new name.
To ask people being released to take an oath would ensure that the prisons remained full. That may be the object of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). There is no evidence that taking an oath would end the violence, but there is much evidence that people would refuse to sign such an undertaking. Even though he was not involved in violence of any sort, after he had been interned, a former Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Frank Maguire, refused to sign an undertaking that he had not been involved in violence or that he would give it up. He refused to be coerced to be released from an unjust internment in that way.
To link decommissioning to the release of prisoners or to put conditions on prisoners is unacceptable to wide sections of opinion in Northern Ireland. If carried, that proposal could wreck the agreement. People will say that the IRA, the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force are engaged in a tactical ceasefire, waiting to see what happens before going on. I do not believe that. The paramilitary organisations did not unilaterally cease violence in a vacuum: they did so in the expectation, held out to them by politicians and contained in the Belfast agreement, of a peace agreement that would remove the causes of violence. Amending the agreement once it has been accepted by putting new pre-conditions on one of its central and essential points, the release of prisoners, will be seen by elements in the paramilitary organisations—even if their leaderships do not regard it as such—as a betrayal of the position that they took up. Decommissioning is a demand that goes beyond the end to violence and many of them regard it as involving symbolic surrender. Organisations may refuse to decommission without restarting violence. If the consequence of that is to halt the release of prisoners,

some people in both loyalist and republican communities, irrespective of whether they are represented by the current leaderships, are likely to restart the violence.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: Let me finish. I think I know the point that the hon. Gentleman wants to raise, because we crossed swords last time we spoke.
In my judgment, such people would have significant support for restarting violence. They would not have my support, but they would have support. New conditions would cause people to stop and think, "If this bit of the agreement can be tampered with, what is the next bit that will be tampered with?" I believe that that is what is being sought.

Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: I am trying to leave time for leader of the Democratic Unionist party to speak before the Minister replies. With great respect, the hon. Gentleman has not been here since the start of the debate and I will not give way.
I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley and the emotion involved. That emotion is felt not only about the Enniskillen killings but about Loughinisland and Greysteel. We can all catalogue many such events, but, unfortunately, what the hon. Gentleman wants is not contained in the agreement. The agreement provides for a specific cut-off date. Whether a person was charged or arrested would depend on the vagaries of third-party action, a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions or the police, rather than on the time when the crime was committed.

Mr. Donaldson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: I normally give way frequently, but I want to let another hon. Member speak on this important amendment.
Any cut-off date must be associated with the signing of the agreement. This is not a question of amnesty. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley read out the terms of clause 10. We must not allow ourselves to be tempted to rewrite the agreement. If we do, the whole of what we are standing for fails and the agreement crumbles.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I want a vote on amendment No. 36. I understand that time is tight so I shall not make a long speech. There are issues that the Committee should not run away from and which need to be settled by a vote here. Representatives here from Northern Ireland have the right to express themselves. As the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said, the Prime Minister made certain pledges to the people of Northern Ireland during the referendum. We were told that when the legislation came before the House, they would be incorporated in it. They have not been. We should, by way of amendment, have the opportunity at least to express the wishes of our constituents on the matter. That is what I wanted to underscore.

Mr. Ingram: Many points have been raised and I will try to address all of them. The hon. Member for Belfast,


East (Mr. Robinson) mentioned the time allocated to the debate. Under the rules of House, he had the right to object to that last Thursday evening. I was here at 10 pm.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The Government did not tell parties through the usual channels of their intention to sneak the guillotine through.

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is always one to be spoon-fed on the procedure of the House. He has been in the House for a considerable time. He is a parliamentarian and should understand the rules of the House.
The amendments concern the criteria to be applied by the commissioners in considering whether a prisoner should receive a declaration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said, the Bill gives effect to the commitments stated in the agreement that
prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements",
and to the undertakings given by the Government on how the agreement would be implemented—which were stated in the paper that the Secretary of State placed in the Library on 20 April 1998. The parameters of this debate are therefore very clear.
The Bill states the three criteria—which I shall enumerate again—that will be applied. First:
prisoners in Northern Ireland must have been convicted of a scheduled offence committed before 10 April 1998 and sentenced to five years or more or life imprisonment.
Secondly:
A prisoner must not be a supporter of a terrorist organisation of the kind specified in the Bill, which means organisations that 'have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire'.
Thirdly:
A prisoner may not be declared eligible for early release if the commissioners consider that, if released immediately, he or she would be likely to become a supporter of a terrorist organisation or become involved in the initiation, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. That means that no prisoner who the commissioners believe will return to violence may be released under the Bill.
Fourthly:
Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment would not be released if they would be considered a danger to the public."—[Official Report, 10 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 1087.]
Those criteria are rigorous and consistent with the terms of the agreement. In different ways, most of the amendments that we have been debating today would disturb the very balance of the agreement. Moreover, the other amendments would not improve the Bill but make it difficult to operate.
For those reasons, I do not intend to accept any of the amendments. I should like now to give detailed reasons for that rejection.
Amendments Nos. 50, 51 and 52 would allow the commissioners not to grant a declaration that a prisoner was eligible for release under the Bill in circumstances in which the conditions stated in the legislation have been satisfied. Clause 3 states the conditions—which are rigorous and comprehensive—that prisoners must meet before they are released.
Given the terms of the agreement, it would be perverse if the sentence review commissioners had the discretion not to release a person who had fully met those conditions. Moreover, inevitably, such discretion would give rise to various legal disputes on exercise and application of the discretion.
I therefore ask the Committee to reject amendments Nos. 50, 51 and 52.
Amendments Nos. 7, 55, 33, 35, 53 and 10 would required that fixed-term prisoners be subject to the same risk test that applies to life sentence prisoners. The hon. Member for Belfast, East argued in his speech in favour of applying the same test.
There are very good reasons for drawing a distinction between determinate sentences and life sentences. Life sentence prisoners will have committed murder or another very serious crime. In the case of discretionary life sentence prisoners—who will not have been convicted of murder—the life sentence is likely to have been imposed precisely because the court considered that risk was an issue. It is therefore entirely proper that the commissioners should take account of any risk of danger to the public.
I do not think that there is any dispute between the hon. Member for Belfast, East and me on applying such a risk test. However, under the law as it applies in Northern Ireland, fixed-term prisoners are released automatically after they have served the required portion of their sentence, and their release is not dependent on a favourable assessment of risk. Therefore, the amendments would introduce a significant new concept into the criminal justice system of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Grieve: rose—

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ingram: No, I shall not give way. In the time available—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Belfast, East can shout all he wants, but I shall not give way, as I have to deal with all the points that have been raised.
I believe that the other criteria that determinate-sentence prisoners would have to satisfy are extremely robust and are appropriate for prisoners who have not been given life sentences by the courts. It has been made clear that a fixed-term prisoner may not be released if the commissioners consider that he is likely to become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. Currently, there is not such a form of risk assessment—certainly not in the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act 1995, which was passed by the previous Government and deals with release of determinate-sentence prisoners.
For those reasons, I ask the Committee to reject also that group of amendments.
I should like now to deal with amendments Nos. 57, 58, 60, 61, 72 and 73. The amendments, which were tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), are intended to include additional terms in the Bill relating to membership of an organisation and proscription. The amendments raise two issues: first, whether it is necessary


to exclude members of proscribed organisations from receiving a declaration that they are ineligible to benefit from the scheme; and, secondly, whether the legislation should refer directly to proscribed organisations.
5.15 pm
A supporter of an organisation may be a person who provides some form of practical or active support for the activities of the organisation. The support could involve collecting money in support of an organisation's activity, or meetings with terrorists who were engaged in acts of terrorism. Although the idea of membership may have a common-sense meaning that everyone can appreciate, to be a member of a proscribed organisation is a criminal offence, and it would be difficult to establish under law that a person was a member of such an organisation if he had not been convicted of membership. We have therefore used the term "supporter", as the test in proving support is an easier one to meet. Consequently, the legislation will be more robust.
The Bill's effect on organisations proscribed under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts or Emergency Provisions Acts was dealt with in the House in the debate on Second Reading. The Secretary of State stated clearly:
This legislation will not remove the ban on organisations that are proscribed under our anti-terrorist laws. The IRA or UDA, for example, will continue to be proscribed, and membership of such organisations will continue to be a criminal offence."—[Official Report, 10 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 1087.]
The amendments would confuse the issue yet again. The Bill will have no effect on proscription of an organisation. Moreover, it is still desirable that the questions whether an organisation has established and is maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire and whether an organisation should remain proscribed—should remain separate. Proscription and eligibility under the Bill are essentially two distinct issues.
For those reasons, I ask the Committee to reject those amendments.
Amendments Nos. 59, 62 and 63 would amend the third condition, which deals with whether a prisoner will become a supporter of a terrorist organisation or engage in terrorism after release. I do not think that any of the amendments are necessary. Therefore, I recommend that they be rejected, as they will not improve the Bill.
Amendment No. 59 would change the third condition, so that it no longer is conditional on whether the prisoner would be released immediately. The legislation was drafted to ensure that the commissioners will consider the current circumstances of prisoners and current likelihoods, and to avoid any suggestion that the commissioners should speculate on unpredictable future events.
Clause 8 makes provision for prisoners who are not released immediately but have release dates in the future. The Secretary of State will refer cases back to the commissioners if circumstances change in the period between the setting of the declaration and the date of release. Therefore, clause 3(5) correctly deals with those to be released immediately.
Amendment No. 62 would extend the current form of words, from "concerned with" to
concerned with or involved with".

Such an addition to the Bill would not be beneficial and is, therefore, unnecessary.
Amendment No. 63 is one of a number of amendments that remove from the third condition the qualification that acts of terrorism must be in connection with the affairs of Northern Ireland and replace it with the qualification that they must be in connection with the affairs of the United Kingdom. The Bill deals with terrorism in connection with Northern Ireland. It is not intended to have wider scope or to deal with international terrorism or terrorism generally. Amendment No. 8— which I ask the Committee not to accept—would have a similar effect.
Amendment No. 25 was tabled by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and deals with the fourth condition, which is on risk. The commissioners will be required to make a rigorous assessment of the danger to the public. If the right hon. Gentleman had read the Bill before asking his questions, he would have seen what rules would be in place to deal with the issue of danger. In making that rigorous assessment, the commissioners will be expected to take account of relevant psychological or psychiatric factors and other relevant information, including that provided by the RUC. The legislation is clear regarding the risk test, so the addition provided by the amendment is not necessary. If the right hon. Gentleman had examined the Bill, he would have been able to assess the rules that will come into force, their parameters and whose advice is likely to be taken into account, even though the rules are not specified in the Bill.
I deal now with amendments Nos. 28, 36, 34, 54, 29, 30 and 31 and new clauses 1 and 2. All would add further conditions to the legislation. New clause 1, tabled by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, would prevent the release of a prisoner if the Chief Constable certified that he was still an active supporter of a terrorist organisation whether or not specified under clause 3(8). The new clause would usurp the jurisdiction of the commissioners appointed under the Bill and give the Chief Constable final jurisdiction over release. That would work against the very principle of establishing the commissioners in the first place and giving them responsibility under the Bill, and it may indeed be contrary to the European convention on human rights, although that would have to be tested elsewhere.
It is important to understand that the commissioners may take account of advice received from the Chief Constable or others, but the final decision on whether a prisoner should be released must rest with the commissioners. My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North made a telling intervention on that point.
Amendment No. 28, also tabled by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, requires that if a prisoner belongs to a terrorist organisation, the organisation must have substantially decommissioned weapons and the prisoner must have completely renounced violence for good before the commissioners grant a declaration. Whether an organisation is co-operating with the decommissioning commission is not a matter for the commissioners but is properly a matter for the Secretary of State to take into account when considering whether an organisation should be excluded from the scheme. It is not a matter for the commissioners but should rightly rest with the Secretary of State, who is also accountable to Parliament.
Amendment No. 36, tabled by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and supported by the hon. Member for Belfast, East requires that a prisoner renounce violence but also requires that he be prepared to undertake community work. In a similar manner, new clause 2, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, would prevent the release of a prisoner unless he gave an oath renouncing violence.
Clause 9 includes stringent licence conditions. These conditions have effect on prisoners who have been licensed and will be imposed rigorously. Moreover, prisoners who are released will have to satisfy those rigorous conditions. In these circumstances, it is unnecessary to require prisoners to give undertakings about their behaviour. Indeed, it would be unfortunate if prisoners were to believe that any undertakings that they might give could take precedence over the already tough licence conditions, as if their saying that they would be on their best behaviour somehow absolved them from meeting all the other criteria. The proposal is therefore unsound.
A requirement to undertake community service on release would be a significant new departure. If prisoners are to be released under the scheme, the aim should be to ensure that they lead a law-abiding and productive life. They should be encouraged to make a positive contribution to society. It would be a major step to set up a scheme to supervise community service, and it could serve merely to delay the point at which former prisoners were reintegrated into society. However, we are actively considering a strategy to ensure that all prisoners who are released can find a way to be reintegrated into society, in the hope that they do not return to their evil ways.
Amendments Nos. 34, 54, 29, 30, and 31 are consequential on the amendments with which I have already dealt, so I ask the Committee to reject them, too.
Amendments Nos. 64 and 20 relate to the requirement that to qualify for the scheme, a prisoner must have committed his offence before 10 April 1998, the date of the Good Friday agreement. Amendment No. 64 would change the date to 31 August 1994, which was the date on which the first IRA ceasefire began. Those involved in the discussions leading up to the conclusion of the agreement were clear that any provisions in relation to prisoners should apply on the basis of a cut-off based on the date of the agreement. That is part of the agreement, and I remind the Committee that the agreement was endorsed by 71 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland.
Amendment No. 20, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and supported by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), would limit the benefits under the legislation to those who were charged before 10 April 1998 with offences before that date. It is an established principle that changes such as those proposed in the Bill should relate to the point at which the offence occurred rather than the point at which an offender was caught or the point at which he was convicted. That principle is enshrined in law—[Interruption.] I hear the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) querying that. He is a respected and intelligent senior counsel in Northern Ireland, and I am sure that he understands the strength of that point. The important thing is that what we are proposing is wholly compatible with the discussions

surrounding the agreement, with what was said by the participants to the agreement and with the undertakings given at that time.
Included in this group are amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who is not in his place to move them. We may well debate them later if he can find some way to bring them before us. In case they had been moved and in case anyone was thinking of voting for them, I should be asking for them to be rejected, too.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: I am disappointed by the Minister's response, certainly to the amendments tabled by the official Opposition. Of course, the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) chipped in yet again to protect one side of the equation.
I have read the agreement, and it is not unreasonable for people to interpret it in the sense in which it has been interpreted in the amendments that we have tabled. The section of the agreement that deals with prisoners states on page 25:
Prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements. The situation in this regard will be kept under review.
The next paragraph states that the review process would provide for account to be taken of the seriousness of the offences of which the person was convicted and of the need to protect the community. The agreement does not say anything about a distinction between fixed-term and life-term prisoners; it talks simply about protecting the community.
There is a certain illogicality in the Minister's response and in the Government's position in that there are fixed-term prisoners who, if let out, will be more of a danger to the community than lifers. The agreement does not make the distinction, and I think that the matter should be revisited in another place.

Mr. William Ross: Much of what the Minister said was completely unsatisfactory, although it was interesting in that it revealed that undertakings had been given. We would hope to pursue these matters on Report. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to move amendment No. 36—

The Chairman: Order. On a technicality, the hon. Gentleman cannot move amendment No. 36 before amendment No. 34, because amendment No. 36 is consequential on amendment No. 34. If he wants a Division to take account of that, I advise him to move amendment No. 34.
Amendment proposed: No. 34, in clause 3, page 1, line 26, leave out
the first three of the following four'
and insert
'all of the following five'.—[Rev. Ian Paisley.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 257.

Division No. 300]
[5.29 pm


AYES


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Wilkinson, John


Hunter, Andrew



McCartney, Robert (N Down)



Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. William Ross and


Thompson, William
Mr. Peter Robinson.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Alexander, Douglas
Fatchett, Derek


Allen, Graham
Fearn, Ronnie


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Ashton, Joe
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Ballard, Jackie
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Barron, Kevin
Flynn, Paul


Bayley, Hugh
Follett, Barbara


Beard, Nigel
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Fyfe, Maria


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Galloway, George


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gapes, Mike


Bennett, Andrew F
Gardiner, Barry


Best, Harold
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Blears, Ms Hazel
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Boateng, Paul
Gerrard, Neil


Borrow, David
Gibson, Dr Ian


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Godsiff, Roger


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Goggins, Paul


Brake, Tom
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gorrie, Donald


Browne, Desmond
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Burden, Richard
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Burgon, Colin
Grocott, Bruce


Burstow, Paul
Grogan, John


Butler, Mrs Christine
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Byers, Stephen
Hancock, Mike


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hanson, David


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Canavan, Dennis
Healey, John


Casale, Roger
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Caton, Martin
Heppell, John


Cawsey, Ian
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hill, Keith


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hope, Phil


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Howells, Dr Kim


Clelland, David
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clwyd, Ann
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Humble, Mrs Joan


Coleman, Iain
Hurst, Alan


Colman, Tony
Hutton, John


Cooper, Yvette
Iddon, Dr Brian


Corbett, Robin
Ingram, Adam


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cotter, Brian
Jenkins, Brian


Cousins, Jim
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Cox, Tom
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Crausby, David
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cummings, John
Jones, Martyn, (Clwyd S)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Darvill, Keith
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Denham, John
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dismore, Andrew
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kemp, Fraser


Doran, Frank
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dowd, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Drew, David
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)





King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Rendel, David


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rooker, Jeff


Leslie, Christopher
Rooney, Terry


Levitt, Tom
Roy, Frank


Linton, Martin
Ruane, Chris


Livingstone, Ken
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Lock, David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Love, Andrew
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McAllion, John
Salter, Martin


McAvoy, Thomas
Sanders, Adrian


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Savidge, Malcolm


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Sawford, Phil


McDonnell, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McFall, John
Sheerman, Barry


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McIsaac, Shona
Skinner, Dennis


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McWalter, Tony
Soley, Clive


McWilliam, John
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mallaber, Judy
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mandelson, Peter
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Martlew, Eric
Stunell, Andrew


Maxton, John
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Meale, Alan
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Merron, Gillian
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Michael, Alun
Tipping, Paddy


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Todd, Mark


Milburn, Alan
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Mitchell, Austin
Touhig, Don


Moffatt, Laura
Truswell, Paul


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Morley, Elliot
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Tyler, Paul


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Vaz, Keith


Mudie, George
Walley, Ms Joan


Mullin, Chris
Ward, Ms Claire


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Wareing, Robert N


Norris, Dan
Watts, David


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
White, Brian


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Olner, Bill
Wicks, Malcolm


Organ, Mrs Diana
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Osborne, Ms Sandra
(Swansea W)


Pearson, Ian
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Perham, Ms Linda
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Pickthall, Colin
Willis, Phil


Pike, Peter L
Wills, Michael


Plaskitt, James
Winnick, David


Pollard, Kerry
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Pond, Chris
Woolas, Phil


Pope, Greg
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wyatt, Derek


Primarolo, Dawn
Tellers for the Noes:


Radice, Giles
Mr. David Jamieson and


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Janet Anderson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 23 to 40 and insert—
'(8) A terrorist organisation is an organisation which—

(a) has been concerned in terrorism, or in promoting it, and
(b) has not established or is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire.



(9) The Secretary of State may specify by order than an organisation is not a terrorist organisation if on application by that organisation he believes that it—

(a) is committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means to achieve its objectives;
(b) is not involved in any acts of violence or of preparation for violence;
(c) is not directing, assisting or promoting acts of violence committed or planned by other people;
(d) is committed to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations and the achievement of the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms, including any of its own, by 22nd May 2000, and
(e) is co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 in the implementation of the Belfast Agreement of 10th April 1998 published as Cm 3883.'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, in line 9, at end insert—
'(ba) is not involved in raising funds through coercion, extortion or any other illegal means;'. Amendment (b) to the proposed amendment, leave out lines 12 to 18 and insert—
'(d) has already decommissioned a significant proportion of its illegally held firearms, ammunition and explosives in accordance with the provisions of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 and is fulfilling a decommissioning timetable which will ensure that is has completed decommissioning before 22nd May 2000;
(e) has commenced the dismantling of its paramilitary structure; and
(f) in the opinion of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary no longer represents a threat to the community.'.
Amendment No. 37, in page 2, line 24, leave out 'may specify only' and insert 'shall specify'.
Amendment No. 38, in page 2, line 24, leave out 'he believes'.
Amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 26, leave out
'connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland'.
Amendment No. 65, in page 2, line 30, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 31 and insert
'satisfy himself that an organisation—'.
Amendment No. 40, in page 2, line 30, leave out
'in particular take into account whether'
and insert
'satisfy himself completely, having taken advice from the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, that'.
Amendment No. 66, in page 2, line 34, after 'any', insert 'criminal act or any'.
Amendment No. 67, in page 2, line 36, after 'promoting', insert
'any criminal act or any'.
Amendment No. 68, in page 2, line 36, after 'committed', insert 'by any individuals or'.
Amendment No. 41, in page 2, leave out lines 38 to 40 and insert—
'(d) has already decommissioned a significant proportion of its illegally held firearms, ammunition and explosives in accordance with the provisions of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 and is fulfilling a decommissioning timetable which will ensure that it has completed decommissioning before 22nd May 2000.'.
Amendment No. 21, in page 2, line 40, at end insert
'in working to achieve the decommissioning of all the paramilitary arms of that organisation by or before 22 May 2000 in accordance with the Belfast Agreement of 10th April 1998 (Cm 3883).'.
Amendment No. 69, in page 2, line 40, at end insert
'and complying with all procedures and directions given by any such Commission in respect of the decommissioning of the weapons and explosives and other such material owned by or under the control of the organisation'.
Amendment No. 76, in page 2, line 40, at end insert
'including by the commencement of actual and ongoing decommissioning of its paramilitary arms'.
Amendment No. 42, in page 2, line 40, at end insert—
'(e) has commenced the dismantling of its paramilitary structure;
(f) in the opinion of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary no longer represents a threat to the community.'.
Amendment No. 77, in page 2, line 40, at end insert—
'(9A) The fact that an organisation which is a proscribed organisation under either the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 or the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 is not specified as a terrorist organisation for the purposes of this Act does not affect its status as a proscribed organisation under those Acts.',
Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 42, leave out '(8)' and insert (9).
Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 43, leave out from 'of' to 'apply' and insert 'subsection (8) does'.
Amendment No. 78, in page 2, line 44, leave out from 'organisation' to end of line 46.
Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 47, leave out '(8)' and insert (9).
Amendment No. 74, in clause 9, page 4, line 35, after 'concerned', insert
'in any criminal act or'.
Amendment No. 11, in page 4, line 36, leave out
'connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland'.
Amendment No. 75, in page 4, line 37, leave out 'Northern Ireland' and insert 'United Kingdom'.

Mr. MacKay: The two most sensitive issues in the Province and on the mainland are the early release of terrorist prisoners and the decommissioning of arms and explosives. As I have said before, there are elements within the Good Friday agreement that we all find difficult to accept. The element that the Opposition find the most unacceptable is the early release of terrorist prisoners who have committed the most vile and dreadful crimes, and whom any civilised society would put behind bars for a very long time. However, we have reluctantly agreed to the early release of prisoners because it is part of a total agreement that we hope and pray might lead to a lasting settlement in the Province and peace for the people of Northern Ireland, who have suffered so much during the troubles of the past 30 years.
On reading the agreement, we have taken heart from the fact that it includes clauses on the decommissioning of arms and explosives. The agreement is very specific, and stipulates that all arms and explosives must be decommissioned within two years of the agreement being signed. We have also taken heart from the fact that the early release of prisoners is clearly dependent on the total renunciation of all forms of violence. Any reasonable person would include decommissioning in that.
5.45 pm
During the referendum campaign, those of us who supported the Government and the yes campaign rapidly realised that many ordinary, decent people in both communities in Northern Ireland were still worried about the early release of prisoners. So we sought assurances from the Prime Minister that the early release of terrorist prisoners would occur only if their paramilitary associates co-operated fully with the decommissioning commission. We pressed the Prime Minister regularly, and I will give one important example. On 6 May, during Prime Minister's Question Time, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition stated:
Opposition Members will argue strongly that the IRA cannot have prisoners released if it does not give up its guns and explosives.
The Prime Minister helpfully responded:
Again, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence. Decommissioning is part of that, of course, but it goes further.

Mr. Ingram: What else does it say?

Mr. MacKay: Once again, the Minister of State asks me what else it says. I am happy to read out the rest of the quotation because it supports my argument. The Prime Minister continued:
It is not just a question of decommissioning, but a question of making sure, as the agreement says, that there is a complete and unequivocal ceasefire."—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
I agree entirely; it is all part of the package. What is more, there is a provision in the agreement for the matter to be kept under constant review. There was absolutely no doubt in our minds, the minds of all reasonable commentators and, much more importantly, the minds of the people of Northern Ireland that they had been given proper reassurances and promises by the Prime Minister.
When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I were in the Province at the end of the referendum campaign, campaigning for a yes vote, we found that many people who previously had reservations had finally decided at the last minute, because of the Prime Minister's assurances, to vote yes. I have absolutely no doubt—and I pay credit to the Prime Minister—that we would not have had a 71 per cent. yes vote without the assurances that he gave and that we had pressed him to give. Without those assurances, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and I would not have been able to have said in the House that the result showed that a majority in both communities had voted yes.
One can imagine our dismay and that of the people of Northern Ireland when the legislation was published. An editorial in The Times this morning stated:
Mr. Blair sought to build on that assurance to secure a majority within Unionism for the agreement. The Prime Minister succeeded, but only by making a pledge which the Government now seems intent on fudging.
The headline was:
Irish sentences. This pledge on decommissioning cannot be dodged or fudged.
Hon. Members should not just take my word for it; they should take the word of The Times in its editorial today. [Interruption.] There is laughter from the Government Benches. I hope that the people of Northern Ireland will note that we and The Times are trying to hold the Prime Minister to account on important matters concerning the early release of prisoners and decommissioning, and that those on the Treasury Bench and the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), find it extremely amusing.

Mr. Peter Robinson: While the hon. Gentleman is on the subject of fudge, will he explain to the Committee why, when the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), made it clear in Prime Minister's questions on 6 May that the Opposition's position was that there should be substantial decommissioning of weapons before any prisoner releases, the Opposition's amendment does not include that requirement?

Mr. MacKay: We believe that it does. It is right and proper that organisations comply fully with the decommissioning commission. I am grateful to the Secretary of State because we had private discussions before the Bill was drafted and she was kind enough to include the word "fully", which strengthened the Bill. I have no problem with that part of the Bill, as the Secretary of State well knows.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): The Bill repeats the Prime Minister's words.

Mr. MacKay: As the Secretary of State says, the Bill repeats the Prime Minister's words at the Balmoral agricultural show, and I am pleased that they have been included. It means that while prisoners are being released, there will be parallel moves towards decommissioning. We all know that prisoners will be released at different times, depending on the length of their sentence and the remission that they are granted under the Bill.
The Bill is unsatisfactory in that it requires the Secretary of State and her successors merely to take into account whether there is co-operation with the decommissioning commission. We mean no disrespect to the Secretary of State, but that is a cop-out; it is weak and insufficient. The logical conclusion is that a Secretary of State can take into account whether decommissioning is taking place, decide that other, perhaps political, factors are more important and say, "It does not matter that decommissioning is not taking place. We shall go ahead and release the prisoners anyway." The Bill does not contain the copper-bottomed guarantee given by the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box on 6 May and repeated around the Province by him and his spin doctors.
Our amendment simply states:
The Secretary of State may specify by order that an organisation is not a terrorist organisation if on application by that organisation he believes that it"—
this is the condition in paragraph (e)—
is co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7".
That confirms and makes copper-bottomed the Prime Minister's pledge. I hope that, in responding to the debate, the Secretary of State or the Minister of State will accept the amendment.
This is a matter of trust, which goes to the heart of government. People voted on the basis of the Prime Minister's pledges and assurances. They were encouraged to do so by me and my colleagues because we believed those assurances. [Interruption.] Now we find that they are not included in the Bill, which is unacceptable.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Mr. MacKay: Let us have nothing from the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) or anyone else about these being in any way wrecking amendments, or amendments that go against the agreement.
I shall quote again from the editorial in The Times today. Referring to the amendment in my name, it states:
His is not a wrecking or teasing amendment, but an attempt to write into law a pledge freely given. If the Government does not accept it, then other parties in the Commons should feel free to oppose what could be fatally flawed legislation.
I warn the Secretary of State that if our amendments are not accepted in an appropriate form, we shall be unable to support the Bill on Third Reading because it will be fatally flawed and wrong. It will let down the people of Northern Ireland and show that in future, we shall never be able to trust the word of the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Winnick: I do not for one moment question the need for the Committee to be concerned about decommissioning; I am in favour of it. The Good Friday agreement spells out clearly what should be done. It has often been argued, in the previous Parliament and this Parliament, that if organisations that have been involved in terrorism want to show genuine good faith, one way in which to do so is to decommission their arms. There is no argument about the desirability of decommissioning; we are all in favour of it.
It is important to bear in mind the fact that decommissioning in itself does not demonstrate that an organisation, whether it is the IRA or a loyalist paramilitary group, would necessarily stick by the ceasefire. Some arms could be given up, but, however desirable that is in itself, it does not demonstrate that violence would not occur again. Let there be no misunderstanding—I am keen for decommissioning to take place, but the question would inevitably arise of what percentage of arms was being given up. Some would say that it was only a small percentage. How could one show that all arms, or the majority of them, were being given up? Those questions are bound to arise. However desirable decommissioning is, the important factor is that the organisations that have engaged in violence should not return to it.

Mr. Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if an organisation has pledged to give up violence and

moreover, as part of the agreement, has pledged to facilitate decommissioning and carry it out within two years, nothing could be better construed as an act preparatory to violence than a failure to decommission?

Mr. Winnick: As I have already said, to decommission would undoubtedly show the genuineness of the organisation's concern. There is no difference of opinion between us about the desirability of decommissioning, but we are debating whether it will occur along the lines that we would like. I return to my earlier point about how much decommissioning will take place. For example, if the Provisional IRA gives up some arms, will we be satisfied that those were all it possessed or will people, perhaps including me, say that it is only a small percentage and ask why it does not give up the rest?
Even more important than decommissioning is that those organisations that have been involved in terrorism should no longer engage in such violent acts. They should no longer commit the crimes and atrocities that many of the prisoners have carried out and of which they have duly been convicted. Those crimes and atrocities on both sides have appalled decent-minded men and women, and we hope that they have now permanently come to an end.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the Sinn Fein Ard-Fheis which endorsed the agreement, speaker after speaker stated that the party should maintain the twin-track policy of a military strategy which required the retention of arms as well as the political path? How does that square with his suggestion that we should trust these people, when they will not decommission?

6 pm

Mr. Winnick: The hon. and learned Gentleman misunderstands my argument: it is not a matter of trusting such people. I am very reluctant to trust anyone engaged in terrorism, or anyone who has been an apologist for terrorism. The fact is that the agreement, which the hon. and learned Gentleman strenuously opposes, has been reached. There are other aspects to decommissioning that must be borne in mind.
The IRA argument is that it was never militarily defeated, and that to give up its arms would be a sign of defeat. We know that it was never militarily defeated; we only wish it had been. That would have avoided so many of the terrible crimes committed over the past quarter century. The IRA has, however, been politically defeated—[Interruption.] I do not know what the mumbling is about. The Provisional IRA set out in 1970 to use terrorism and violence to force Northern Ireland, against the wishes of its majority, to leave the United Kingdom. The IRA worked on the assumption over all these years that, if it applied enough pressure by bombing at home and on the mainland, sooner or later, the British people and their Government would weaken, whereupon it would get what it wanted. It has not got what it wanted. Northern Ireland Members know that a united Ireland is as remote today—it may be even more remote—as it was when the IRA started off in 1970.
If anything, the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's position in the United Kingdom, never questioned by the international community, has been strengthened as a result of the constitutional changes in the Irish Republic.


So while there is understandable concern about decommissioning, it would be unfortunate if we did not look at the larger political picture. Like all its predecessors since 1920, the IRA has not succeeded. A united Ireland will not come about through violence or terrorism—as many of us said at the time when we had the chance to express our views directly to Sinn Fein.
I remember a meeting in September 1983, when a delegation from the parliamentary Labour party Northern Ireland group, which included my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), went to Northern Ireland to meet representatives of the political organisations that agreed to speak to us. One such organisation was Sinn Fein, whose leadership were in attendance. I said then that the IRA would never succeed. No section of the community in Britain would allow it to, or would reject the wishes of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. That is the larger political picture.
Fortunately, the leadership of Sinn Fein and the IRA have come around to the view that the military campaign begun in 1970 will not succeed. As we know from our constituency post bags, there was not the slightest sign of the British people saying, "We have had enough; we will give in." It would be quite wrong, therefore, not to recognise the political victory over terrorism that democracy has achieved.
The Provisional IRA's predecessor, the Official IRA—it is now split into various groups whose attitude to Northern Ireland is more Unionist than that of the Unionists, if that is possible—ultimately gave up terrorism. That is why the Provisionals appeared on the scene. At least two main political parties that originated half a century ago in the Irish Republic, during what is known there as the war of independence and then the civil war, never gave up their arms, but were no less committed to constitutional practice than we are.
Nothing in the Bill would allow the automatic release of prisoners. If it did, many people, not least me, would be worried. The Bill spells out precisely what is necessary before prisoners can be released. The organisation to which they belong must be
committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means to achieve its objectives".
That will have to be decided on the merits of each case. An organisation must have
ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or of preparation for violence … directing or promoting acts of violence committed by other organisations".
These are surely important criteria; certain assurances on them will have to be given to the commission.
The cynical view that the agreement is a charade and that the IRA is not genuinely interested in ceasefires is a different matter altogether—but it is not the view, I understand, of the main Opposition party. The Opposition accept the agreement, even though there can be no guarantees, especially when dealing with organisations such as IRA-Sinn Fein. But it is certainly worth testing its commitment to see whether it is genuine.
When, in November 1993, the Conservative Government announced their contacts with the IRA—no ceasefire being in operation at the time—the Labour Opposition made no mileage out of that, although it is

quite legitimate for Oppositions to do so on a host of other issues. We took the view that if the then Government were entertaining contacts with the IRA without a formal ceasefire, they were not doing so for fun or for electoral favours. They were doing it because they believed that it was in the national interest. They wanted to test the water, to discover whether there was any possibility that the IRA was genuine.
I well remember my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), leading for the Opposition, saying that we accepted the then Government's explanation and would pursue the same path.

Mr. MacKay: The Committee is aware of the hon. Gentleman's considerable experience and knowledge of the subject, as co-chairman of the British-Irish parliamentary body. He has outlined some of the preconditions in clause 3(9), and he may have noticed me nodding my assent to them. My problem is not with them; it is with the fact that the Secretary of State
shall in particular take into account
whether these organisations are meeting the conditions. I suggest that that is not strong enough; I suggest that the conditions must be satisfied. Does the hon. Gentleman, with all his experience of the Province, agree?

Mr. Winnick: I do not believe that there is much difference between Government and Opposition. We agree on the desirability of decommissioning, which we all want. No one would suggest that the Prime Minister is any less convinced of its desirability than is the hon. Gentleman. To my knowledge, no one—at least in the official Opposition—would wish to question that. No one would wish to question that it is largely a matter of taking into consideration many factors to discover whether it is possible to reach a position where, by and large, there is permanent peace in Northern Ireland—at least, where the main terrorist organisations will no longer engage in such activity. The hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) made a genuine point—not just a debating point. Either we must find a possible compromise, or the Government may decide whether it is possible under the agreement to accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
At the weekend, Conservative spin doctors did much to create the impression that the official Opposition were not satisfied, and might vote against the Government today or on Third Reading. That would be extremely undesirable. In my view—I may be wrong; others will assess that—one reason why, over the past 25 or 27 years, we have succeeded in preventing Northern Ireland from becoming a political issue to the extent that it produces conflicting exchanges between Government and Opposition resembling those that, rightly in a democracy, take place on many other issues, is that we basically agreed on the main issues. We agreed on the defeat of terrorism—on trying to persuade those engaged in terrorism that their objectives could not be reached, and that constitutional means were the only way in which there could be any suggestion of uniting Ireland. It is up to those who want a united Ireland to argue their point of view in a democratic way—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Order. I have been most generous to the hon. Gentleman, recognising that he has much experience and historical


knowledge to bring to the debate, but I must ask him to bring himself more closely within the terms of the amendment.

Mr. Winnick: Thank you very much, Mr. O'Hara.
We have succeeded over the past 27 years because the main political parties in the House have been united. As I have illustrated, at various times in opposition—such as when contacts were made with the IRA—we gave support when we could have made much of what the previous Government were doing. I repeat, in conclusion, that it would be unfortunate if, today or on Third Reading, hon. Members were to divide the unity that has been established on the means of reaching a settlement in Northern Ireland. It is important that we preserve that unity between the main parties, and it would not be desirable for the Committee to divide—at least between the official Opposition and the Government—on the desirability of decommissioning, on which there is no basic disagreement.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Listening to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I had to pinch myself to believe what I was hearing. Contrary to what he said, the IRA has not been defeated in any manner—many of us in Northern Ireland suspect that that is because no real effort has ever been made to defeat it. Many of us believe—the belief is widespread—that the hon. Gentleman's fears that a great division of opinion will occur between the official Opposition and the Government on the present arrangements are unfounded.

Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for allowing me to intervene so early in his speech. When he says that the IRA has not been defeated, presumably he means politically defeated. That is precisely what the IRA and Sinn Fein constantly tell their members. They may boast that they have not been defeated, but is it not a fact that what the Provisional IRA set out to do in 1970—to bring about, by violence, the unity of Ireland—is as remote now as it was then? Why does the hon. and learned Gentleman not admit it?

Mr. McCartney: I do not admit it because it is a myth. Sinn Fein-IRA have retained all their weaponry. Their record from 1970 to the present time is one of unremitting political success.
The IRA has retained all its weaponry; there is no suggestion that, militarily, it is any less strong than it was. From a political point of view, under the terms of the agreement, it has obtained, or will almost certainly obtain, two Ministers in Government in a Northern Ireland Assembly under the d'Hondt provisions. It has made it clear that it considers the agreement nothing more than a transitional phase, en route to journey's end.
The IRA has removed section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which asserted the sovereignty of this Parliament over
all persons, matters, and things
in Northern Ireland. It has made the Act of Union and the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 subordinate to the proposed legislation setting up the political and constitutional settlement relating to the agreement. It will obtain executive bodies, including a north-south

ministerial council with all-Ireland executive powers. It will obtain implementation bodies on an all-Ireland basis, to implement those powers. It is a record not of failure but of unremitting success.
Amendment No.1, tabled by the official Opposition, contains several weaknesses. The suggestion that the requirement to co-operate
fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 in the implementation of the Belfast Agreement of 10th April 1998 published as Cm 3883
requires the IRA to decommission anything within two years is a complete misreading of the situation. The agreement requires Sinn Fein, or any other political party fronting a terrorist organisation, only to use such influence as it may have in persuading that organisation to disarm.
Everyone knows that Sinn Fein happily signed up to the Mitchell principles, which required more or less the same commitment. Sinn Fein will happily sign up to any of the requirements in the agreement. It will then simply say, "We are a political party. We have an electoral mandate. We have sufficient Members under the Northern Ireland (Elections) Bill to entitle us to two Ministers in Government, and we have no guns and no Semtex. As long as we use such influence as we may have, you cannot put us out if the IRA refuses to decommission." At the same time, it will use as political leverage, in the assembly or in future negotiations, the threat of a renewed IRA mainland campaign to extract further concessions from the Government, as it has from a series of British Governments. It is laughable to suggest that it has recognised the principle of consent.
The fact that there could never be a united Ireland without the practical consent of a majority of the population in Northern Ireland never required any Act of Parliament or any agreement. It was a brute fact of political life with which those nationalists always had to contend, but there was an additional factor in relation to the majority in Northern Ireland saying no. There was the assertion by the British Government of their sovereign right over Northern Ireland as part of a unitary state, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Martin McGuinness and the Taoiseach have both said categorically that, as a result of the agreement, the British people and the British Parliament are out of the equation of the constitutional future of Northern Ireland. That was said not by an Ulster Unionist, but by a Taoiseach of the Irish Republic, and the statement has been made not on one occasion, but on many occasions.
Of course, that is correct. Before the agreement, there was a claim of sovereignty by the British Government. That no longer exists under the terms of the agreement. To assert in the House that the IRA has suffered any military or political defeat is erroneous. The people who have suffered defeat are the pro-Union people of Northern Ireland.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman's preamble on the nature and principles of the IRA was rather lengthy. When he saw my body language, he returned to the amendment, but he is now straying back to his preamble. I ask him to return to the terms of the amendment.

Mr. McCartney: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. O'Hara.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North need have no fear of any reappraisal of the joint position of the Government and the Opposition on Northern Ireland. There will be some form of agreed fudge on this essential issue.

Mr. Winnick: Good.

Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman may well say "Good," but I remind him of a principle that has been stated many times. When the Opposition and the Government are noisily and vigorously in opposition, the principles of democracy and the best conventions of the House are being observed, but when the Opposition and the Government are in a state of unctuous, self-congratulatory cohesion and are assisting one another, people somewhere—in this case, the pro-Union people of Northern Ireland—are being treated shabbily.
The hon. Gentleman was right to refer to the silence of the then Opposition at the time when Sir Patrick Mayhew—now Lord Mayhew—was conducting the secret negotiations. That has been the record in this House in relation to the pro-Union majority in Northern Ireland, and it will continue through the fudge of an amendment that is not serious and does not address the real issue.

Mr. McNamara: If there was unctuous cohesion, it does not seem to be present in this debate. There is a fundamental difference between the Government and the Opposition on the matter, so the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) should not read too much into what has happened in the past. There may be other disagreements with the Opposition on the agreement, although I hope that those will not arise.
The uniqueness of the agreement is indeed that the British Government no longer claim sovereignty, as the hon. and learned Gentleman would define it, but the sovereignty lies in the people of Northern Ireland. Their position will not be altered except by their consent. The irony is that that guarantee is supported not by the people of Great Britain, but by the people of the whole of Ireland, by an overwhelming majority. Those who want a united Ireland have guaranteed those who want to maintain their British connection their right to do so as long as they have a majority.
That is far more important than any alteration that may have been made to the Act of Union or to the Government of Ireland Act 1920, because the power now lies with the people in Northern Ireland. I hope that in time that will lead to a united Ireland, but that will be the decision—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. Once again, I must remind an hon. Member that the subject under debate is the definition and specification of terrorist organisations.

Mr. McNamara: I was suggesting that those who signed up to the agreement, whether they were terrorist organisations or not, misinterpreted it if they did not understand the changed situation that resulted from it. The British Government are present in Northern Ireland only by virtue of the consent of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland, while there is a majority in the north who want us there.
The amendment is interesting. A rehabilitation process is being undertaken by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). Not having been present when the agreement was signed, he is trying to demonstrate his presence now. His amendment is superfluous, unless the Opposition are attempting again to rewrite the agreement.
Clause 3(8) and (9) contain the Blair criteria. Some of us would argue that those go beyond what was in the agreement or in any document shown by the British Government to the parties during the talks. Those criteria certainly were not in the briefing document, which explained the Government's view of the effect of the agreement in the section on prisoner release. The amendment goes too far in imposing new conditions on the process.
In addition to the questions about linking decommissioning with release, the amendment raises other problems. The agreement does not say that decommissioning must have been achieved within two years of the agreement. The hon. Member for Bracknell says that he is stiffening up the agreement·or expressing in other words what is in the agreement, but that is not the case.
The agreement states:
All participants … also confirmed their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission, and to use any influence they may have"—
which suggests that some of them have no influence—
to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement".
The agreement does not state that that will be achieved. It does not set a deadline. That is an aspiration.

Mr. Grieve: How can there be a clear and unequivocal ceasefire, as provided for in clause 2, and a commitment to, and declaration of support for, exclusively democratic and peaceful means of resolving differences, if one of the parties to the agreement reneges on the undertaking to decommission in the two-year period?

Mr. McNamara: The parties have not reneged on any undertaking to decommission within two years. If the hon. Gentleman reads the agreement, he will see that it says that they will use their best offices in that regard. As no one is exploding bombs and there is no paramilitary activity, it suggests that people have covertly—if not openly—acquiesced to what has been suggested. That is absolutely correct and should occur.
The proposed new subsection (8) purports to establish an objective test of what is a terrorist organisation, but it eliminates completely the judgment or belief of the Secretary of State. Therefore, any decision would presumably be reviewable by a court. Judicial review of my right hon. Friend's decision can occur, but only if that decision is perverse, it is an administrative matter, the correct procedure has not been followed, or the decision was contrary to natural justice. Under this amendment, a public review could be requested.
The proposed subsection (9)(d) introduces a new decommissioning test, which is about the overt policy of paramilitary organisations rather than their concrete actions. In other words, if the IRA were to decommission weapons, but could not bring itself to admit that in public, under the terms of the hon. Gentleman's amendment, IRA prisoners would be ineligible for release. That would be manifestly unfair.
6.30 pm
New subsection (9)(e) refers to co-operating fully with the decommissioning body
in the implementation of the Belfast Agreement".
That is presumably intended to add the test of making significant moves towards decommissioning within two years—which is what the hon. Gentleman said. However, the agreement views that as a parallel process that is not linked to prisoner release. There is no linkage between prisoner release and decommissioning in the document—and nor was there any such linkage in the briefing documents. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman again seeks to rewrite the agreement.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I agree entirely that that linkage is not in the agreement, but it is most definitely present in the Prime Minister's undertakings to the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. McNamara: Like everyone else, the Prime Minister was bound by the agreement, and the undertakings that he gave were in the spirit of that agreement. That is apparent from the tests in the existing clauses. Some people would claim that the Bill goes too far, but I believe that it is just about acceptable on the basis of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said. I remind hon. Members that the Prime Minister is no more in a position to rewrite the agreement than the Taoiseach, the leaders of the Ulster Unionist party, the SDLP or any other party that signed the agreement—the agreement is the agreement is the agreement. Anyone who tries to put a gloss on it, engage in some sort of scriptural exegesis on it or say that something is in it when it is not will be in a very difficult position.
This is the agreement for which the people of Ireland voted and which was in the document that my right hon. Friend presented to Parliament. The Bill encompasses the spirit of the Belfast agreement regarding the release of prisoners and I believe that we should reject amendment No. 1 out of hand. I think it reprehensible that those who jumped on the coat-tails of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State—they realised that the Good Friday agreement was a jolly good thing and said, "Please sir, me too sir; can I be associated with it too, sir?"—should now be engaged in the spurious and damaging business of trying to undermine everything in that agreement.

Mr. Hunter: If the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is correct, I fear that many people in Northern Ireland will regret the vote that they cast in the referendum and will seek other avenues and channels through which to express that regret. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I listened to the theological debate with great interest. I suppose that the matter will be decided ultimately through on-going dialogue between my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), the Secretary of State and the Government. However, there is clearly a fundamental difference of interpretation.
I shall speak briefly to amendment No. 1 and then to amendments (a) and (b), which I tabled. My hon. Friend will know how much support he received from Opposition Members when, on Second Reading, he said:
a significant number of moderate people in both communities finally decided to vote yes only when the Prime Minister had given them a clear and unequivocal assurance that decommissioning and the renunciation of violence would be incorporated in the legislation on early prisoner release and the setting up of the assembly.

In the Opposition's view, the Bill goes only some of the way to satisfying those assurances and will, therefore, require amendment in Committee next week. The most serious omission is that it does not establish a clear legislative linkage between some actual decommissioning having taken place and the accelerated release of prisoners."—[Official Report, 10 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 1093–94.]
Later in the debate, my hon. Friend intervened on the Minister of State, the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram). Referring to the Prime Minister's exchange with the Leader of the Opposition on 6 May, my hon. Friend said:
Any reasonable person who looks at what he"—
the Prime Minister—
said—and a lot of reasonable people in the Province looked at it and decided in the end to vote yes during the referendum campaign—would judge that decommissioning had to take place before prisoners were released. That is absolute fact. If that is not conceded in the legislation, the people of Northern Ireland will have been ratted upon."—[Official Report, 10 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 1163–64.]
My hon. Friend then withdrew his final words.
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's speech today. He assured us that, as a result of his private exchange with the Secretary of State, he was of the opinion that amendment No. 1 conforms with the specifications and requirements that he urged on Second Reading. I am sure that many people will study carefully both the amendments and my hon. Friend's words. Some of us have a slight difficulty, in that we were not privy to the conversation between my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State, and are therefore not precisely sure of the line of reasoning, the interpretation of the Bill and the interpretation of the Opposition amendments that led to that reconciliation of views, and which assured my hon. Friend—and should therefore assure us—that amendment No. 1 is consistent with the actual and on-going decommissioning of weapons during the process of prisoner releases.
That difficulty is compounded somewhat by the fact that those Conservative Members who have followed events in Northern Ireland over time were asked five years ago to defend the position that the IRA had to decommission all its weapons and explosives before it was admitted to negotiations. In the course of time, we were asked to defend the position that only some weapons and explosives had to be decommissioned.
In course of time, that, too, was changed, and we were asked to support and defend the new position: that the IRA should decommission weapons and explosives during the course of the talks. We defended that position. That was then changed, and we were asked to defend the position that only some of its weapons and explosives needed to be decommissioned during the talks.
Now the position has changed, and we are happy to rise in defence of the position that all weapons will be decommissioned by 2000. However, we should like a little more persuasion that that could not be interpreted as, once again, bowing to the threat of terror, or prostituting the rule of law to the demands of those who have no respect for law or order.
Amendment (a) to amendment No. 1 proposes to add a requirement to those conditions that an organisation must


observe and the requirements it must meet for it to be deemed not to be a terrorist organisation. I propose that that organisation should not be involved
in raising funds through coercion, extortion or any other illegal means;".
I raised that point at Second Reading during the speech of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), because the requirements in the Bill and the Opposition amendment are deficient in that one important respect.
It is right that an organisation deemed "not terrorist" must be committed exclusively to democratic and peaceful means and must not be involved in acts of violence, in preparing acts of violence or in sub-contracting others to do the same. That leaves untouched the area of terrorist funds and fund-raising activities. Any organisation can raise funds legally for legal and legitimate purposes which are non-terrorist. That is not the point I have in mind.
Historically, terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland have been involved in raising money by a number of illegal means—racketeering, blatant extortion and coercion, and the illegal siphoning of funds from superficially legitimate practices. Those illegal practices are among the hallmarks of a terrorist organisation. If an organisation continues to practise them, it can reasonably be assumed that the organisation is continuing, or is preparing to resume, activities for which illegal funds are required. I appreciate that it might be argued that the practices that I have in mind are covered by the prohibition of "preparation for violence", but that is questionable at the very least.
If the Government are seeking to include that sort of activity as an indication that an organisation is a terrorist organisation, I would suggest that that should be made explicit in the Bill. I would therefore argue for the inclusion of my proposed paragraph (ba) into the new subsection (9), and I ask the Government to give that serious consideration. I acknowledge that the wording may be imperfect—it was my own effort and it could, therefore, be regarded as a probing amendment. However, I hope that the Secretary of State will take it seriously.
With my amendment (b), the argument—which I hope is sustainable—is that we are not seeking to alter the agreement, but we wish to obtain clarification and definition of how the agreement is to be implemented in practical terms. The amendment proposes to add three further subsections to the proposed subsection (9).
6.45 pm
Clause 3(9)(d) requires an organisation to be "co-operating fully" with the decommissioning commission. I hope that all Opposition Members can be reassured that the wording of amendment No. 1 incorporates actual and continuing decommissioning during prisoner release. I am seeking to explore, probe and establish what might be at stake here. In amendment No. 1, two additional requirements are proposed by way of clarification. The first is that the organisation must be committed
to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations and the achievement of the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms, including any of its own, by 22nd May 2000.

I propose that there should be a further definition of "co-operating fully" which, perhaps, is not inconsistent with the understanding that my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell has formed following his conversation with the Secretary of State. First, there must already have been decommissioning—an advance payment of good intent. Secondly, that must have amounted to a significant proportion of that organisation's illegally held arms. Thirdly, the organisation will have begun implementing a decommissioning timetable to be completed before 22 May 2000.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as I may not get a chance to speak because of the numbers who wish to take part in the debate. Does he agree that one of the difficulties of his amendment—and one of the difficulties faced by the Government—is precision? Once one tries for precision, one can further cloud the waters. What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "a significant proportion"? What does he mean by
commenced the dismantling of its paramilitary structure"?
Unless we know where we are starting from, both definitions are impossible to attain.

Mr. Hunter: The hon. Gentleman is reinforcing my prime point. The Bill as it stands simply contains the phrase "co-operating fully". I am trying to advance a way—he tells me that it is insufficient—of defining what the Government mean by "co-operating fully". In a sense, his fundamental objection is not directed at me, but at the Bill for failing to define what "co-operating fully" means. I am trying to answer the very same question that he is posing.

Mr. Willis: But the hon. Gentleman is not answering it in the amendment.

Mr. Hunter: I hear the hon. Gentleman's sedentary intervention, but, with respect, I would not for a moment claim that my drafting is perfect. I regard myself as an amateur in these matters. I am merely pointing towards what I believe to be a definition and a clarification of the concept of fully co-operating, which requires such definition and clarification. I do not suppose that he could improve my amendment, although that would be an interesting academic debate on another occasion.
Paragraph (e) of my amendment (b) demands the dismantling of paramilitary structure. I shall accelerate and simply make the point that terrorist organisations cannot operate in a vacuum because their classic activities—recruiting, training, intelligence gathering, targeting, researching and testing improvised weapons, purchasing arms, fund raising and so on—require organisation, command and communication structures, cells and active units. One indication of serious intent would be the dismantling of those structures.
Paragraph (f) of my amendment (b) requires the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to conclude that any organisation
no longer represents a threat to the community.
That is entirely reasonable. The Bill states that the decision would be a solo decision made by the Secretary of State—ultimately, it would be subjective. This part of my amendment (b) addresses both of those valid points and criticisms. As a confidence-building measure, to use


the fashionable phrase, it is reasonable to seek an endorsement from a second party, and the Chief Constable of the RUC is appropriate. I hope that consideration will be given to those points.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The amendments go to the heart of a controversy that has raged for considerable time in Northern Ireland. The question is, will the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom live up to the commitments he gave to the people of Northern Ireland—commitments which many hon. Members decided on Second Reading were essential for a yes vote in the referendum, which was obtained? Speaker after speaker recognised that his intervention, his visits to Northern Ireland, his issuing of commitments in the House and in the Province, and his speeches—he even went to the extent of signing billboards with his commitments written thereon—encouraged many people in Northern Ireland to believe that his interpretation of the agreement, which was contrary to the interpretation of the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and myself, was one which they could accept.
That interpretation, as it relates to the Bill, ensured that there would be direct linkage between the handing over of illegal weapons by paramilitary organisations and the release of paramilitary prisoners. There was no doubt in the minds of the people of Northern Ireland what the Prime Minister was conveying to them. They believed, and their newspapers, television and radio led them to believe, that he was saying expressly what he had said in the House to the Leader of the Opposition.
The Leader of the Opposition asked:
Does he agree that prisoners should not be released early until the organisations to which they belong have substantially decommissioned their weapons?
The Prime Minister said that the answer to that question was yes. That was yes to substantial decommissioning of illegal weapons, before prisoners were to be released. He went on to say:
the independent Commission, and the Secretary of State, are bound to have regard to whether decommissioning has taken place."—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
There was no doubt in the mind of the Prime Minister on 6 May; nor could there have been any doubt in the mind of the Opposition on the response that they had received from him. There was certainly no doubt in the minds of the people of Northern Ireland that the agreement that they were about to vote for in the referendum made sure that there would be decommissioning before prisoner releases would take place.
When we looked at the Bill, we looked to see whether the Prime Minister's promise to the people of Northern Ireland would be kept. Clearly it has not been kept. There is no requirement for decommissioning, and prisoners can, and no doubt will, be released before one ounce of Semtex, one bullet, one detonator or one gun is handed over. Every hon. Member knows that that is what will happen, because the Bill is the same sort of fudge that has happened before.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) described the sad and sorry tale of how decommissioning has been dealt with by the House. All of us were told, not only by Prime Minister, that the requirement was there for Sinn Fein-IRA to decommission before they could get into the talks process. A Unionist leader even said that, if they did not do it, he would bring the talks to an end. They did not do it, but the talks went on.
The same Unionist leader strangely voted against Second Reading of the Bill; I thought that Second Reading was a vote on the principle, yet the principle that he voted against was one that he had supported when he signed the agreement. That is strange, but it is not for me to unravel. Unfortunately, he is not here to unravel it for himself.
The talks process proceeded without any decommissioning taking place, yet a smokescreen was put up by various leaders before the talks began to suggest to the people of Northern Ireland that decommissioning would occur, if not at the beginning, then during the process. Exactly the same smokescreen is going up today. The commitment is not in the Bill, and I must say to the Opposition spokesman that it certainly is not in his amendment—it just is not there. The amendment stands up like a limp piece of lettuce. It has no backbone, is devoid of substance, and does not fulfil what clearly was the view of the Leader of the Opposition, who, in his question on 6 May, said that not only prior decommissioning, but substantial decommissioning, was required.
The amendment does not require substantial decommissioning. I intervened on the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who said that he had come away from what I hope was a cosy meeting with the Secretary of State convinced that, if he could get the substance of the amendment through the House or achieve an undertaking to that effect, it would mean what I want it to mean—that there would be prior decommissioning. The Secretary of State or the Minister will be able to say in winding up whether the Government's interpretation is that there will be prior decommissioning.

Marjorie Mowlam: May I help the hon. Gentleman? I offered briefings to Members of both Houses who wanted the detail of the Bill, because I thought that it had not been explained in the press as helpfully as it perhaps could have been. I offered and carried out a number of briefings, but I never discussed specifically worded amendments. I did say, helpfully, to a number of hon. Members that we would consider anything that they wanted to bring forward. That is what happened.

Mr. Robinson: It gets more and more interesting. It must have been the Secretary of State's aura that persuaded the Opposition that what she intended to do was of greater substance than the amendment suggests. Nothing in the amendment even hints at prior decommissioning. To suggest that adding the words
in the implementation of the Belfast Agreement of 10th April 1998 published as Cm 3883
means that there will be prior decommissioning is nonsense. As the hon. Member for Hull, North says, the agreement does not require decommissioning. It requires that the participants
also confirm their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission, and to use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement in referendums North and South of the agreement and in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement.
7 pm
Thus the agreement contains only an undertaking to use influence. It contains no requirement, and imposes no


sanction, if decommissioning does not happen, so let us not suggest to the people of Northern Ireland that the insertion of some reference to the Belfast agreement suddenly creates a requirement for decommissioning to take place. Nothing could be further from the truth.
A smokescreen has been put up not only by the Government in references in the Bill, but, sadly, by the Opposition in their amendment, which does not meet the requirement of people from my tradition: prior decommissioning. That brings us back to the issue of defining a terrorist organisation.
If an organisation holds on to a stockpile of 100 tonnes of weaponry, it is reasonable to describe it as a terrorist organisation. "Not so," says the Secretary of State. "It can hold on to those weapons and still not be defined as a terrorist organisation. It will therefore not be specified on the list." The Secretary of State and I have different opinions on that matter, and she is entitled to her view. However, the Opposition have shown many times in the past that their view is precisely the same as mine.

Mr. MacKay: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he has been quoting me incorrectly extensively. Let me explain to the House again the difference between the Opposition and the Government at this stage—I hope that the difference will not remain for much longer.
The Bill as it stands says only that the Secretary of State must take into account whether paramilitary groups are co-operating with the commission. We say that any paramilitary group and its political associates must prove to the Secretary of State that they have been complying with the commission—in other words, decommissioning. That is the matter in dispute. There is no smokescreen from the Opposition. The only smokescreen comes from the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who, instead of trying to smear the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and his colleagues who have worked hard towards the agreement, should try to ensure that, like us—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. That is a lengthy intervention. I am conscious that there is a guillotine on this debate in less than half an hour.

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman's argument does not cut ice. Even if a requirement is placed on the Secretary of State, the requirement still does not include prior decommissioning.
The amendment does not say that there must be prior decommissioning. The hon. Gentleman simply cannot get away with saying that the Secretary of State is required to deal with those issues.

Mr. MacKay: indicated dissent.

Mr. Robinson: He shakes his head like a nodding dog in the back of a car, but that does not disprove my argument. The fact remains that the Leader of the Opposition made it abundantly clear at the Dispatch Box that he required substantial decommissioning before any terrorists were to be released. The Opposition have not included that in their amendment, the Government have

not included it in the Bill, and it is therefore clear to the people of Northern Ireland that not only the Government but the official Opposition have welshed on their commitment.

Mr. Tom King: I wish to speak briefly on the most sensitive issue in the agreement. Like the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), I recall a meeting of the British-Irish Parliamentary Body, which happened to be meeting on the day when the Downing Street declaration was signed. It met in the morning, and it was decided to debate the agreement in the afternoon. Although a number of British Members expressed general enthusiasm and optimism for the declaration and the further opportunities that it offered, they recognised that one of the key issues that would have to be addressed immediately, obviously and naturally, was decommissioning.
Every Irish Member of the Dail who was at that meeting regarded that as the most unhelpful intervention that British Members could have made. They said that those who knew anything about the history of Ireland thought that anybody who talked about decommissioning must be seeking to wreck any hope of progress, and that it was quite unrealistic to expect decommissioning to take place, especially in the time frame then envisaged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). That showed, at that moment in the process, that decommissioning would prove to be an extremely difficult issue.
In my experience of Northern Ireland, the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), who has now left the Chamber, is the classic illustration of those from the Unionist side who believe nothing from their own Government but read every Sinn Fein speech avidly from cover to cover, and believe every word in them. He is someone who does not listen to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) saying that the agreement strengthens the Union, because that is the speech listened to by Sinn Fein, who fear it does. The speeches made by the Sinn Fein leadership are read by various people on the wings of Unionism—those who cannot form their own view, and believe everything they hear.
The hon. Gentleman was well answered by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). It was a rare occasion when I agreed with almost everything that he said about the importance of the decisions being made by the people on the island of Ireland. Their decision confirms the position of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom so long as the people of Northern Ireland so wish it. The fact that that is now accepted by the overwhelming majority of people throughout the island of Ireland destroys the central plank of Sinn Fein's arguments over the years.
After that, however, the hon. Member for Hull, North made an appalling speech. If ever anything was more significantly off message, I cannot imagine it. He said that the Prime Minister's contribution and pledges should be disregarded, and that the Prime Minister had no authority to make a pledge, because he could only hand round copies of the agreement and give no reassurance. He said that the decisions of the people of Northern Ireland, which everybody recognises, and the Prime Minister's intervention, contribution and pledges were critical to the outcome of the referendum. There would be no


agreement, and we would not be having this debate today, if there had not been a positive vote in the referendum, and the Prime Minister's pledge was critical in achieving that result.
I wish to say a word about decommissioning. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) was right: we do not start from here. Unfortunately, we start from a succession of concessions that have been made over decommissioning. The hon. Member for Hull, North gave me the impression that he was against decommissioning. I do not think that he meant to give that impression. He may have been seeking to say that it was a question of timing and that it should not be forced, but he seemed to say that there was no case for it.
Many people in Northern Ireland never expected to be in this position. They always thought that the other side would put up an insuperable roadblock, which meant that they could go along with the process because they would not be the ones who ultimately would wreck it. I have heard Mr. Mitchel McLaughlin say that he thought that the Unionists had gone further than he ever expected. In those circumstances, I am not yet satisfied that Sinn Fein has gone further than it expected to go. Decommissioning is the step—for Sinn Fein and perhaps for a wider spectrum of Irish opinion—that they must now be prepared to take.
I recognise that all sorts of complications and sensitivities are involved in decommissioning. I have the impression that General de Chastelain and his colleagues have been anxious to come up with ways in which those sensitivities can be met, and some weapons can be handed over.
I know that there is a nervousness and insecurity about exposure to the threat from loyalist terror gangs, but it is not possible to fight such gangs with heavy machine guns, sniper rifles, RPG7s and other rocket launchers. We may not be able to decommission fertiliser, which has been one of the more effective terrorist weapons in recent years, but we can take an intelligent and constructive approach.
The Secretary of State knows how loth I have been to intervene in these matters, as I have a deep sympathy for anyone facing the challenges and pressures of her office. However, I believe that we must make a start on decommissioning, and we must make it absolutely clear that the period of concessions on this matter will not be an endless push at an open door.
I think that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that the challenge was whether people who have an influence over these matters are genuine about wanting peace. As I understand it, the Continuity IRA has access to some weapons. The quartermaster may be part of that splinter group. While those arms exist, despite the good faith of the people whom, at present, the Secretary of State must talk to, negotiate with and accept binding commitments from, there is no guarantee that they will hold control of that very dangerous weaponry for ever. Against that background, a positive step must be taken to remove the weapons from the island of Ireland.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I ask hon. Members to bear in mind the fact that time is short, and that a number of hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Donaldson: I shall be brief, and I shall speak to amendments Nos. 21, 76 and 77.
Amendments Nos. 21 and 76 deal with the issue of linking decommissioning to the release of prisoners. Decommissioning is an integral part of the agreement. It is in the agreement, and it is politically correct to link various aspects of the agreement. It may not be explicit in the agreement that certain aspects are linked, but the Bill clearly links decommissioning to the release of prisoners. It is one of a range of factors that the Secretary of State is to take into account in determining whether a terrorist organisation is no longer acting as such.
Decommissioning is important, because it is tangible evidence of whether terrorist organisations are committed to democratic and peaceful means. This agreement has been sold to the people of Northern Ireland as providing the way towards peace. How can we hope to get peace if the terrorist organisations that hold these paramilitary arms are not prepared to decommission them? We are not talking about a few arms: the IRA has more than 100 tonnes of illegal weaponry. That is a huge arsenal on a small island. We cannot ignore that fact, because, as the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said, it is not just the IRA that has access to those weapons, but other organisations that have apparently broken away from the IRA.
Decommissioning is important not only to achieving stability but as tangible evidence that the IRA, the UDA and the UVF are now committed to exclusively peaceful means. If decommissioning does not happen, that will send a signal to the people of Northern Ireland that those organisations are not committed to exclusively peaceful means—otherwise, why would they hold on to the weapons?—and the threat of violence will remain.
The threat of violence is as potent as actual violence in its influence over the democratic and political process in Northern Ireland. That is why the republican movement in particular will continue to use the threat of violence within the assembly and the Executive to further its political agenda.
It is up to members of the republican movement to prove that I am wrong. The most tangible evidence that they can provide to me and the people I represent is to decommission their weapons. The people I represent have been on the receiving end of IRA violence, and they need to know that it has given up violence for good. Without decommissioning, they will not be convinced.

Mr. William Ross: Are not my hon. Friend's concerns increased by the fact that some of those who have left the Provisional IRA and have gone to the new terrorist bodies are reputed to be those who had control of the weapons—the adjutants? The people who know where the weapons are have control of them, and they can pass them on to their new companions at any time, should they so desire.

Mr. Donaldson: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is a well-established fact that one of the leading members of the new organisation called the Real IRA, which is linked to the 32 County Sovereignty Committee, is the former quartermaster of the Provisional IRA. He has access to and knowledge of the whereabouts of these illegal weapons. Substantial evidence suggests that some of the weaponry already being used by that group, including Semtex explosives and mortars used in recent attacks, came from the IRA's arsenal of weaponry. That cannot be ignored.
Decommissioning is important. From a political perspective, if terrorist organisations are to benefit from the agreement by the release of their prisoners, why should we not require them to deliver real peace through an end to violence and the decommissioning of their weapons? If we say to them, "Here are the benefits, but we do not actually require you to deliver your side of the bargain," they will not deliver their side of the bargain, and the weapons will remain in their hands.
Amendment No. 77 refers to the proscription of terrorist organisations. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said:
This legislation will not remove the ban on organisations that are proscribed under our anti-terrorist laws. The IRA or UDA, for example, will continue to be proscribed, and membership of such organisations will continue to be a criminal offence."—[Official Report, 10 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 1087.]
I see no difficulty in the Government accepting amendment No. 77, which states:
The fact that an organisation which is a proscribed organisation under either the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 or the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 is not specified as a terrorist organisation for the purposes of this Act does not affect its status as a proscribed organisation under those Acts.
If the Government fail to accept the amendment, many people will wonder why they are not prepared to make explicit in the Bill that which the Secretary of State has already declared in the House.
Such declarations in the past have, in the fulness of time, been found wanting. I hope that the Government will accept my amendment, so that it is clear from the legislation that she means what she says. Organisations that are proscribed under the other legislation to which I have referred should not be removed from the list of proscribed organisations simply as a result of the provisions of this Bill as it stands.
I also hope that the Government will accept amendments that seek to strengthen the link between the need for actual and on-going decommissioning, and the release of prisoners.

Marjorie Mowlam: We have had a wide-ranging debate. I shall begin by responding to what the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said in his opening remarks. He suggested that the Prime Minister had fudged his commitments to the people of Northern Ireland. I should like to put on record the fact that I consider that to be untrue and unfair to the Prime Minister, especially in view of the lengths to which he has gone in Northern Ireland and in the Bill to set out the position clearly.
The Prime Minister set out his position in full in his speech in Belfast on 14 May during the referendum campaign. He said:
In clarifying whether the terms and spirit of the agreement are being met and whether violence has genuinely been given up for good, there are a range of factors to take into account.
Those words were subsequently used in the Bill. It is therefore entirely wrong to say that requiring those matters to be taken into account constitutes a fudge of the Prime Minister's commitment.

Mr. Grieve: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Marjorie Mowlam: I am sorry, but I will not. I have given away all the available time, so that as many hon. Members as possible could speak.
In the House on 6 May, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that he agreed with the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) that the Secretary of State was
bound to have regard as to whether decommissioning has taken place."—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
The Prime Minister agreed with that, and so do I. It is reflected in the Bill, which requires me to take into account whether an organisation is "co-operating fully" with the decommissioning commission.
Let me deal with two matters that were mentioned in some shape or form by every speaker. The first is whether and how we can tie down in the Bill the interlocking nature of the Good Friday agreement—the links involved in it—and the second is how that relates to decommissioning. I hope that, in the nine minutes that I have left, I can respond to all who raised that issue.
As it stands, the agreement recognises a number of explicit links. For example, the participants agreed that
Prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements.
That link is fully reflected in clause 3; but it is also true to say that underlying those explicit links are deeper and more fundamental understandings.
The Government are in no doubt that a fundamental element of those underlying understandings is that those who seek to benefit from the agreement can do so only on the basis of a genuine and unequivocal commitment to exclusively peaceful means, now and in the future. That is fundamental. Without it—or if there were any suggestion that it was not being followed in practice—a key foundation of the agreement would be fatally undermined.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) expressed that clearly when he said on Second Reading, speaking of arrangements for prisoner releases:
People would not find this concept acceptable unless they knew that, as a result of the agreement as a whole, there was to be a genuine ending of violence and a genuine peace. What might be tolerable in the context of a genuine and permanent end to violence would not be tolerable otherwise."—[Official Report, 10 June 1998; Vol. 313, c.1097.]
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said the same in Belfast on 14 May. He said:
I believe that most people will be ready to accept even the hardest parts if they had genuine confidence that the paramilitaries were really ready to give up violence for good.
The Government have taken care to ensure in the Bill that, when that fundamental commitment is called seriously into doubt, we can act to stop prisoner releases. I can suspend the scheme as a whole; I can exclude specific organisations from benefiting from it; I can vary the two-year point set as the target for completion of all releases. I assure the Committee that I will not hesitate to use those powers if the foundation of the agreement—an end, now and in the future, to violence, and a commitment, now and in the future, to exclusively peaceful means—appears to have been set aside. As the Prime Minister said—and meant it—
There can be no fudge between democracy and terror.
There is, however, another fundamental foundation to the agreement, which we must also take care to preserve. Where violence has been genuinely brought to an end, and where there is a genuine and unequivocal commitment to


the use of exclusively peaceful means now and in the future, the way is open for those previously committed to violence to benefit from the terms of the agreement, without new preconditions or barriers being set up in their path other than those clearly stated in the agreement itself.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his speech in Belfast—which the right hon. Member for Upper Bann said had a crucial effect on public opinion—
We are not setting new preconditions or barriers. On the contrary, we want as many people as possible to use the Agreement as their bridge across to an exclusively democratic path. We will encourage them to take this path.
Were we to write into the Bill preconditions, barriers, tests or links—however desirable they may be—if they were not in the agreement, we would ourselves be departing from it. We would then lose all moral authority to hold other participants fully to the commitments into which they have entered.
In all this, the key is confidence: confidence on all sides of the community in Northern Ireland that the terms and spirit of the agreement are being adhered to by everyone involved. If that confidence is fundamentally undermined, conditions will not exist in which prisoners can be released, or continue to be released. We shall use the powers available to us in the Bill accordingly.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) raised some specific points. Clause 3(9) does not contain an exhaustive list of factors to be taken into account; other factors can and will be taken into account if they are relevant. Any coercive fund raising would in any event give rise to issues relating to acts of violence. Fund raising may well constitute a part of acts of preparation for violence, which are referred to in clause 3(9)(b).
Along with others, the hon. Gentleman asked what was meant by "co-operating fully" with the independent commission on decommissioning. The answer is simple. On 14 May, the Prime Minister referred to
full co-operation with the independent commission on decommissioning to implement the provisions in the Agreement.
What we are looking for is full co-operation as a part of the implementation of these factors.
The gist of amendment No. 1 requires me to designate organisations that benefit, rather than excluding those that are not to benefit. The latter, not the former, is required in the agreement. The amendment also adds to the test in the agreement a complete and unequivocal ceasefire, with five separate tests, each of which must be passed. That is not consistent with the agreement or with the Prime Minister's speech at Balmoral, which set out four factors that were to be taken into account in the reaching of an overall judgment. I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.
Let me add a footnote on amendment No. 21. I should like the opportunity to consider the issue further, and to consider whether the language of clause 3(9)(d) could be adjusted to make the point clear beyond reasonable doubt.
We are not debating these issues in a vacuum. It is not as if the Government had produced the Bill out of the blue. The issues concern the parties and people of Northern Ireland intimately. As the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) made clear, it is they who have decided, for the first time, in negotiations in Belfast, a point of view that has now been endorsed in the referendum.
I say that to emphasise the fact that, if there is a difference between us in the Committee, it is not over the importance of the issues that we are debating or the concerns to which they give rise, which are understandable and shared by all of us. The difference is this: we do not believe that it would be right to overrule by our actions here what has been agreed by the parties in Northern Ireland, and endorsed overwhelmingly by the people of Northern Ireland. We are determined to hold every participant to the commitments that they made in reaching that agreement. The Government are no less determined to implement what has been agreed by the parties and endorsed by the people.

Mr. MacKay: The Secretary of State has attempted to say that the editorial in The Times and I were wrong to suggest that the Prime Minister has fudged his commitments. I again refer the right hon. Lady to what the Prime Minister's said last month at Prime Minister's Question Time:
It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence. Decommissioning is part of that,".—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
That is not included in the legislation. It will be included only if our amendment is accepted. I commend it to the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 125, Noes 274.

Division No.301]
[7.30 pm

AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Amess, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Fraser, Christopher


Arbuthnot, James
Gale, Roger


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Garnier, Edward


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gibb, Nick


Baldry, Tony
Gill, Christopher


Bercow, John
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Blunt, Crispin
Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair


Boswell, Tim
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, peter (Worthing W)
Green, Damian


Brady, Graham
Greenway, John


Brazier, Julian
Grieve, Dominic


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hague, Rt Hon William


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hammond, Philip


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hawkins, Nick


Burns, Simon
Hayes, John


Butterfill, John
Heald, Oliver


Cash, William
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Horam, John


(Chipping Barnet)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Clappison, James
Hunter, Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


(Rushcliffe)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Bernard


Colvin, Michael
Johnson Smith,


Cran, James
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Key, Robert


Day, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Duncan, Alan
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Duncan Smith, Iain
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Faber, David
Lansley, Andrew


Fabricant, Michael
Leigh, Edward


Fallon, Michael
Letwin, Oliver


Flight, Howard
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)






Lidington, David
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shepherd, Richard


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Loughton, Tim
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Sir Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


MacKay, Andrew
Streeter, Gary


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Swayne, Desmond


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Madel, Sir David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Malins, Humfrey
Thompson, William


Maples, John
Tredinnick, David


Mates, Michael
Trend, Michael


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Tyrie, Andrew


May, Mrs Theresa
Viggers, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Wardle, Charles


Nicholls, Patrick
Waterson, Nigel


Norman, Archie
Wells, Bowen


Ottaway, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Page, Richard
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Paice, James
Willetts, David


Pickles, Eric
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Prior, David
Woodward, Shaun


Randall, John
Yeo, Tim


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)



Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ruffley, David
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Sayeed, Jonathan
Mr. Tim Collins.




NOES


Ainger, Nick
Chisholm, Malcolm


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Church, Ms Judith


Alexander, Douglas
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Allan, Richard
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Allen, Graham
Clelland, David


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clwyd, Ann


Ashton, Joe
Coffey, Ms Ann


Ballard, Jackie
Coleman, Iain


Barron, Kevin
Colman, Tony


Bayley, Hugh
Cooper, Yvette


Beard, Nigel
Corbett, Robin


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cotter, Brain


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cousins, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cox, Tom


Bermingham, Gerald
Crausby, David


Best, Harold
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Boateng, paul
Cummings, John


Borrow, David
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Darvill, Keith


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Brake, Tom
Dismore, Andrew


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Doran, Frank


Browne, Desmond
Dowd, Jim


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Drew, David


Buck, Ms Karen
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Burden, Richard
Edwards, Huw


Burgon, Colin
Efford, Clive


Burstow, Paul
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fatchett, Derek


Byers, Stephen
Fearn, Ronnie


Cable, Dr Vincent
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Caborn, Ricahrd
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Follett, Barbara


Canavan, Dennis
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Casale, Roger
Fyfe, Maria


Caton, Martin
Galloway, Geroge


Cawsey, Ian
Gapes, Mike


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gardiner, Barry


Chaytor, David
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Chidgey, David
George, Bruce (Walsall S)





Gerrard, Neil
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mallaber, Judy


Godsiff, Roger
Mandelson, peter


Goggins, Paul
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gorrie, Donald
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Grant, Bernie
Martlew, Eric


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Maxton, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Meale, Alan


Grogan, John
Merron, Gillian


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Michael, Alun


Hancock, Mike
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hanson, David
Milburn, Alan


Harries, Dr Evan
Miller, Andrew


Harvey, Nick
Mitchell, Austin


Healey, John
Moffatt, Laura


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Heppell, John
Moran, Mrs Margaret


Hesford, Stephen
Morley, Elliot


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Hope, Phil
Mudie, George


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mullin, Chris


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Howells, Dr Kim
Norris, Dan


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Olner, Bill


Humble, Mrs, Joan
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hurst, Alan
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hutton, John
Pearson, Ian


Iddon, Dr Brain
Perham, Ms Linda


Ingram, Adam
Pickthall, Colin


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pike, Peter L


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborugh)
Plaskitt, James


Jenkins, Brain
Pollard, Kerry


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Pope, Gerg


(Welwyn Hatfield)
pound, Stephen


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Ieaun Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Radice, Giles


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Raynsford, Nick


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N )


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Rendel, David


Kemp, Fraser
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rooker, Jeff


Khabra, Piara S
Rooney, Terry


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Roy, Frank


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Ruane, Chris


Kingham, Ms Tess
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Leslie, Christopher
Salter, Martin


Linton, Martin
Sanders, Adrain


Liningstone, Ken
Savidge, Malcolm


Llwyd, Elfyn
Sedgemore, Brain


Lock, David
Sheerman, Barry


Love, Andrew
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McAllion, John
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McCartney, Ian (Markerfield)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mc Donnell, John
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McFall, John
Smith, John (Glamorgan


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McIsaac, Shona
Soley, Clive


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mackinlay, Andrew
Squire, Ms Rachel


McNamara, Kevin
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McNulty, Tony
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


McWilliam, John
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin






Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wareing, Robert N


Stunell, Andrew
Watts, David


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
White, Brain


(Dewsbury)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wicks, Malcolm


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
(Swansea W)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Tipping, Paddy
Willis, Phil


Todd, Mark
Wills, Michael


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Winnick, David


Touhig, Don
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Truswell, Paul
Woolas, Phil


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Tyler, Paul
Wyatt, Derek


Vaz, Keith
Tellers for the Noes:


Walley, Ms Joan
Janet Anderson and


Ward, Ms Claire
Mr. David Jamieson

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 47, at end insert—
'(11) The Secretary of State shall in particular review the list of organisations specified under this section after 22 May 2000 in the light of the reports of any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Decommissioning Act 1997.'.
We have had modest, rather than good, success with the Government today. I appreciated the Minister of State agreeing to one of our amendments earlier and was disappointed that the Secretary of State was unable to accept our more substantive amendment a moment ago. I hope that we will at least get two out of three.
Let me explain why the amendment is important. There are some happy coincidences in respect of two-year limits. The agreement specifies that all decommissioning of arms and explosives should occur within two years. Equally, the Bill allows prisoners who are not otherwise released to be released two years after the Bill becomes law. I need hardly say that nearly all those prisoners will be the most dangerous and hardened, who have committed the worst offences. Principally, they will be lifers—those whom all reasonable people in both communities will feel most uncomfortable about releasing back into society.
We support the Bill overall, but we believe that it is fatally flawed without amendment No. 1. The agreement specifies that all prisoners will be released after two years. That is fair enough, but the least the Secretary of State can do is to ask the decommissioning commission to give a report after 22 May 2000, after the two years stated in the agreement are up. One would hope that the commission would say that everything had occurred as it should have done under the agreement, that the relevant paramilitary organisations had complied with the amendment, and that the arms and explosives had been decommissioned. There would then be no good reason not to let out these hardened and brutal murderers. However, if the report said that decommissioning had not been fully complied with, it would be correct, under the legislation as amended, for the Secretary of State not to let them out. The best chance to get complete decommissioning of arms and explosives, which both I and the Secretary of State want, is to say that the remaining hardened prisoners will not be let out of gaol until final decommissioning has occurred.
In the previous debate, we wrangled about when decommissioning was taking place, when it started and whether prisoners should be let out early. Hon. Members on both sides of the argument legitimately expressed concern that it would be imprecise. That is as may be, but there is nothing imprecise about the remaining prisoners. The agreement states categorically that all decommissioning of arms and explosives should be concluded by 22 May 2000.
I should think that the Bill will not become law until next month. Two years from that date, the remaining prisoners will be released. Therefore, the Secretary of State, or her successor, will have ample opportunity between 22 May 2000 and the date in July 2000 to determine whether the decommissioning requirement has been complied with. If it has not, those hardened prisoners should not be released.
I commend amendment No. 5 to the Committee.

Marjorie Mowlam: Amendment No. 5 would require me to do what I shall already be doing under clause 3(10). As hon. Members will know—as I stated in our previous debate—I am very sympathetic to the intention behind the amendment. However, the matter is dealt with already by clause 3(10), which I shall resist being duplicated.
Clause 3(10) owes a great deal to helpful suggestions made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson). The list of designated terrorist organisations that cannot benefit under the Bill is not a once-and-for-all list. Organisations can move on to and off the list, which must be kept under review at all times.
Clause 3(10) helpfully makes explicit the need for constant review. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann for suggesting that any misunderstanding would be avoided if the Bill contained the requirement for regular reviews. I intend to keep the list under regular review throughout the agreement's implementation—including both before and after 22 May 2000, which is the second anniversary of the referendums. Moreover, clause 3(10) already requires me to do so. To that extent, amendment No. 5 unnecessarily duplicates the clause.
We have always said that crucial to successful implementation of the agreement is confidence that all parts of it are implemented. If there is no progress on one part of the agreement, implementation of it all will be put at risk.
All supporters of the agreement are committed by the agreement to total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. They are committed also to using any influence that they have to achieving decommissioning of all paramilitary arms by 22 May 2000.

Mr. William Thompson: Does the Secretary of State mean that the provision will operate in the same way in which it operated during the talks? Does she mean that terrorist organisations will be able to commit an offence, be taken off the list for a short time, and—once they say that they have returned to a ceasefire—again be included in the list? Surely such a situation is unacceptable.

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He should remember that the Prime Minister clearly stated—I have supported the statement many times


in the House—that the criteria will become more rigorous as the two years pass. Therefore, as time goes by—regardless of whether something may have been agreeable initially—if an organisation is asked to leave, it will become increasingly difficult for it to return. We have already made serious commitments in the Bill, which we expect to be fulfilled—just as we are fulfilling other commitments.
I do not think that the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and I disagree fundamentally on the matter. I ask him to understand that the Bill already gives me wide powers to suspend the scheme, to exclude specific organisations and to vary the two-year cut-off point. If confidence that the whole agreement is being implemented is missing—whether because of a failure in decommissioning or because of a failure in another fundamental commitment—the Government have powers to stop the prisoner arrangements. We shall use those powers if circumstances—specifically the need for confidence—warrant it.

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for clarifying how she will approach the release of prisoners and, specifically, the matter of the list of organisations. However, notwithstanding her comments, it is difficult to determine how insertion in the Bill of amendment No. 5 would negate what she is attempting to achieve elsewhere in the Bill.

Marjorie Mowlam: The amendment duplicates the clause. It is repetitious.

Mr. Grieve: Although I hear the Secretary of State say "duplication", I think that duplication may sometimes serve a purpose—which, in this case, undoubtedly is reassurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) was trying to express the anxiety that people feel. I certainly endorse his belief that there is such anxiety. People are anxious that, the further down the road we go—the closer we get to the date on which it is likely that the terrorists who have been convicted of the most unpleasant offences will be due for release—the greater the temptation will be for the decommissioning issue to be pushed entirely out of the picture.
The anxiety has been reinforced by the difficulties that the Government seem to be having over the clear and explicit comments that the Prime Minister made before the referendum. Although I am mindful of the fact that the Government face an extremely difficult task in that matter, and that words and semantics sometimes can be unhelpful, there is, nevertheless, an anxiety.
What seemed, before the referendum, to be clear and explicit assurances, which I think were wholly reconcilable with a proper and legal interpretation of the agreement, seem now to have been subtly moved away from because of an anxiety which—although I am not quite sure where it lies—may be based on a desire not to offend other parties to the agreement. Perhaps that is why the Ulster Unionists have been so upset by the change, and why further reassurance in any form—even if it is not in the form of amendment No. 1—would be welcomed.

I do not want to labour the point or to take up the time of the Committee. Nevertheless, including as an explicit part of the legislation a requirement to review after 22 May 2000 the list of organisations would seem to go some way towards dealing with the anxiety.

Mr. Hunter: I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend does not want to detain the Committee. However, I invite him to make more of the point that clause 3(10), which states that
The Secretary of State shall from time to time review the list of organisations",
is not duplicated by amendment No. 5. Nor does the Bill reflect the Prime Minister's words that urgency will increase as time passes. Therefore, amendment No. 5 is valid, and the Secretary of State's comments were inappropriate.

Mr. Grieve: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, and do not disagree with a single word that he said. Perhaps I was making too great a concession by saying that the amendment duplicates the clause.
I suppose that, as a lawyer, I am aware that documents such as the agreement can be read in different ways. I am aware also that it is possible to express in a Bill the same purpose—how to achieve the same end—in different ways. I therefore always try to listen carefully to the comments of the Secretary of State and the Minister when they explain to the Committee what they are trying to achieve. I am extremely mindful of the difficulties that they face on those points.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) that it would certainly be more explicit to include in the Bill the specific reassurance that, after 22 May 2000, the list of specified organisations will be reviewed. I do not think that such a provision would be an unnecessary duplication. However, as I said, in so far as it is a duplication, it is a reassurance—which, in the context within which we are operating, would be particularly available.
As I said, I will not labour the point or take up any more of the Committee's time, but I hope that the Secretary of State will give the matter serious consideration, The amendment can be included in the Bill without adversely affecting other matters about which I appreciate she is anxious, and its inclusion would go some way toward providing an important reassurance that the list of organisations will be reviewed in the light of the conditions that prevail after 22 May 2000.

8 pm

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I fully support amendment No. 5, which was moved so succinctly by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who speaks on Northern Ireland affairs for the Opposition.
I have a simple question for the Secretary of State: if the Prime Minister felt it necessary to give verbal assurances during the referendum campaign in Northern Ireland to persuade a majority of the people, and certainly large numbers of Unionists, to support a yes vote, and went out on a limb on several issues to get a yes vote of a size that would justify proceeding with the Good Friday agreement, why will the Secretary of State not include the


amendment in the legislation on the same ground—that it would give some reassurance to the Unionist people of Northern Ireland that she is sincere?
The Bill gives the Secretary of State a discretionary power to review the list "from time to time", but how she will review it is very much—[Interruption.] The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), is commenting quietly and courteously from a sedentary position.

Mr. Grieve: That is unlike him.

Mr. Winterton: No; I have known the Minister for some time and he has always been most courteous.
I feel strongly about this issue. The Opposition have sought to support the Government, but I must establish my position very clearly. Had I been a voter in Northern Ireland, I should have voted no in the referendum. The Secretary of State and her Ministers know that I was one of three Conservative and Unionist Members of Parliament who voted against Second Reading of the Bill, so my principled opposition to it is established. However, the Bill received a Second Reading with a substantial majority, so I see it as my duty to try to improve the Bill.
The Prime Minister felt it necessary to give additional reassurances to the loyalist Unionist people of Northern Ireland. By the way, that transcends the religious divide—there are many Catholics who are Unionists. They would be reassured if the Secretary of State would accept this rational amendment for the very reasons advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), and for the even more moderate reasons proposed my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who is a practising barrister. The amendment would provide the reassurances that I believe the people of Northern Ireland justly require from the Secretary of State because of the huge powers that the Bill gives her and because of the element of discretion involved.
The House likes the Secretary of State. She has sought to do an excellent job, and a very difficult one. The fact that I disagree with much of what she has done is irrelevant at this stage. My position on Northern Ireland was established way back in 1971–72, so I speak from a position of some commitment to the Unionist people and to peace in Northern Ireland. I plead with the Secretary of State to make this one modest concession, even if she and the Government consider it to be a duplication of what she believes is already part of the legislation.

Mr. Thompson: I support the amendment because it was tabled by the Opposition, and I appreciate the Opposition's attempt to clarify and strengthen the Bill. Unfortunately, that attempt has been rejected by the Government.
I am not sure that the amendment will be all that effective, however. As I understand it, under the agreement, prisoners will be released in two years' time. I suspect that they will be out in two years because an agreement has been made and signed by all the participants, and I assure the Committee that Sinn Fein and the IRA expect the Government and all the participants in the agreement to fulfil that agreement. They will expect their prisoners to be out by 22 May 2000, irrespective of the terrible crimes that they have

committed. I have lived in Northern Ireland and seen Governments operating for long enough to know that those prisoners probably will be out.
Perhaps the Secretary of State will clarify for me how she would be able to include the IRA on the list. We are told that organisations on the list will have to have established and have to be maintaining
a complete and unequivocal ceasefire.
My understanding is that the IRA ceasefire is a four-month renewable ceasefire. Does that qualify in the mind of the Secretary of State? It certainly would not qualify in mine.
The IRA has said that it will reconsider the position in four months' time. If it is satisfied with the political progress, it will renew its ceasefire. In other words, the ceasefire is on a four-month, renewable basis. That can hardly accord with the provisions of the Bill.
I am somewhat concerned about what the Secretary of State said about organisations that are on the list and which then move off it but which may then be able to move back on to it. That seems to be a replica of what happened under the Mitchell principles. When the talks were taking place, the organisations were supposed to have committed themselves fully to peaceful means. When it was discovered that they were murdering people, they were put out of the talks for a few weeks to do penance; then they were brought back in as repentant, reformed groups. Such a situation, which was implied in the Secretary of State's words this evening, is completely unacceptable.
If organisations get on the list and then sin, they should be removed from the list, and it should be made clear that they will never be allowed back on. We cannot allow organisations to be put on the list, taken off for a short time until they have mended their ways—or appear to have done so—and then allowed back on. We need some reassurance from the Secretary of State that that will not happen.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend—I should like to call him that—believe that Sinn Fein-IRA will ever decommission a majority of its weaponry? Is that likely to happen before 22 May 2000? Under the Mitchell principles, we were told that there would be no discussion until decommissioning had taken place, but the goalposts were shifted. Will the same happen now?

Mr. Thompson: I do not believe for a moment that Sinn Fein-IRA have the slightest intention of ever decommissioning. Their power lies not in their votes, but in their guns—and not necessarily in the use of those guns but in the equally potent threat that they will be used. They have clearly said that they will not decommission, because the moment they do so, they will lose their power.
Sinn Fein is the most powerful party in Northern Ireland. Every word that Sinn Fein members speak is recorded. The Government take note of everything that they say. We are told that they have direct telephone communication with the Secretary of State. We are told that when they are stopped on the road by the security forces they can ring up and get clearance so that the security forces allow them to go on. I do not believe that Sinn Fein-IRA will give up their guns, because they would lose their power and their influence.
However, we are told that Sinn Fein-IRA will give up their guns. People seem to think that they will, although I do not believe it. Let us give them the chance in the Bill, but let us do all that we can to strengthen it so that they will be able to decommission if they ever intend to do so. I do not believe that they will, because their power lies in their guns and they will not give them up.

Mr. Hunter: The provisional selection of amendments conveniently gives this debate the title "Review of lists of terrorist organisations". Of direct relevance to the amendment and the clause is a point that featured at least twice on Second Reading. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to refer to it in some detail if she replies.
The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) talked in detail about the potential conflict between the workings of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and this aspect of the Bill. He envisaged circumstances in which there could be a contradiction of interests; with the application of different criteria, an organisation that would remain proscribed under the PTA would be deemed non-terrorist under the Bill.
The Minister has not fully addressed the issue. I accept that there is not much time, but it is directly relevant to the amendment. Perhaps the Secretary of State will consider making some comment.

Marjorie Mowlam: I should like to respond briefly to some of the points that have been made. To answer the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), I have made it clear this evening and before that the tests will become more rigorous over time. That is the important fact to remember. The agreement will not work unless there is confidence that all the different elements are working. A continuing review process is built in if any element is not working. We have made it clear that we shall support parties that complain and ask for a review, because we want to ensure that all elements of the agreement work. If any element is not working, the agreement will not work. It is crucial that all the parts work together.
The hon. Member for West Tyrone referred to me talking to Members of Parliament. I talk to all Members of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman has not phoned me or asked me to call him. I have talked to every Member of Parliament who has asked me and I shall continue to do so.
We have had helpful contributions in the spirit of what we are trying to do from some Conservative Members, even though the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) disagrees fundamentally with what is going on. The contribution of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) matches that of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) earlier. Both have serious questions about whether the agreement will work, but, because the consent of the people of Northern Ireland has been demonstrated, they are willing to work to move the process forward.
8.15 pm
The hon. Members for Macclesfield and for Beaconsfield asked for further reassurance. I want to offer

what reassurance I can to all the people of Northern Ireland. I would not like the hon. Gentlemen to think that the Bill will go through without such reassurances being offered. I should like to put on record again the fact that no supporter of a terrorist organisation will be released. The four factors mentioned by the Prime Minister are reproduced in the Bill. The situation will be kept under regular review and the two-year cut-off can be increased. I will have other powers, including the power to suspend the agreement. I hope that the hon. Gentlemen recognise that those substantial safeguards and reassurances are in the Bill. Subsection (10) deals with the important points.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the reasonable way in which she is responding to the concerns of those of us who want additional reassurances in the Bill. She has talked about suspending the agreement. This might be a hypothetical question, but if the circumstances were such that it was justified to pull the rug on the agreement would the Secretary of State have the courage and determination to do so, even though she would not want to? That is a leading question and a difficult one, but it is critical. Would she have the courage and determination to do what was right if the agreement was being fundamentally abused by one of the parties?

Marjorie Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman has asked for additional reassurances. The reassurances that the Prime Minister gave in the Balmoral speech on 14 May are in the Bill. Many people asked us to put them in, and we have done so. There is a clear provision for suspension of the scheme for those who are not signed up to an unequivocal, permanent commitment to a ceasefire.
Such questions always lead to headlines about the suspension of the legislation—although I see that most of the press have gone to dinner. We must build confidence to ensure that if everybody works on all the parts of the agreement, we have a chance of making it work. If we look for negatives, we shall certainly find them. We must look for the positives and work forward. As I have made clear in other speeches, if there are difficult judgments to make, I shall make them. Who got Sinn Fein out of the talks? Who made sure that the Ulster Democratic party was out of the talks? That shows our commitment to taking difficult decisions.

Mr. Grieve: Does the Secretary of State agree that one virtue of having a review on a fixed date, such as 22 May 2000 is that, in the past, deadlines have appeared to concentrate minds wonderfully? Indeed, it could be argued that there would not have been an agreement had there not been the deadline that it had to be achieved by Easter. One advantage of a deadline is that it will concentrate the minds of paramilitary organisations which may be a bit sluggish or have internal difficulties about decommissioning because of the consequences to them of not meeting that deadline.

Marjorie Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that deadlines make a difference, but we are now in a materially different position. We now have an agreement in which all the parties in Northern Ireland have participated, and 71 per cent. of the people consent to its basic principle. It is important to recognise that nothing will be possible in the months and years ahead


unless confidence is built. We can put in place structures and plans, but they can work only if confidence is built by the people of Northern Ireland and the parties that are represented here.
We can talk dates and structures. As I said earlier, clause 3(10) offers reassurance on the face of the Bill. As a lawyer, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield understands that duplication is not necessarily desirable. I have offered reassurances in the Committee this evening and I do so again now. We have powers to revoke licences and to suspend the scheme, and we will use those powers if there is a breakdown in the unequivocal commitment to the ceasefire. The factors that put meat on the bones of the agreement are there, but it is up to the parties to make the agreement work; if they do not do so, it will not work, regardless of what we do.

Mr. MacKay: I agree with the Secretary of State that there is not huge disagreement between us on amendment No. 5—unlike on the previous group of amendments, which we tabled because we continue to believe that the promises and assurances given by the Prime Minister have not been incorporated into the legislation and that the people of Northern Ireland have been badly let down. However, that is a matter for Third Reading, so I shall not stretch your patience, Mr. Martin. Instead I shall address amendment No. 5.
My hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) have made it clear to the Secretary of State that there are two reasons why we consider the amendment to be worth while and rather important. First, it is a confidence-building measure and, secondly, we do not accept the right hon. Lady's conclusion that it merely repeats what is in clause 3(10). We support subsection (10), but the additional subsection (11) is important because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said, it would concentrate minds on the due date.
It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say that what really matters is the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. Of course she is right, but she also knows that minds need to be concentrated. It would concentrate minds hugely if the matter were so clearly stated that those whom I would describe as the remainder prisoners—those who are not due out until two years after the coming into force of the legislation—knew that they would not be released at all if the paramilitaries with whom they associated had not decommissioned.
Everyone agrees that decommissioning of arms and explosives will be difficult to achieve. The one possibility of achieving it—which the Secretary of State and I passionately want and which we know Northern Ireland needs—is to make the clause sufficiently clear to ensure that paramilitary organisations know that their boys in prison for longer sentences will not get out in two years' time if they have not decommissioned, and that the Secretary of State will be reviewing the matter.
I urge the Secretary of State to accept the amendment. Nothing that she has said shows that she fundamentally disagrees with it. It would be extremely helpful and would encourage decommissioning, which is precisely what she passionately wants. I urge the Committee to support the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 125, Noes 278.

Division No. 302]
[8.24 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Amess, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Lansley, Andrew


Arbuthnot, James
Leigh, Edward


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Letwin, Oliver


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Bercow, John
Lidington, David


Blunt, Crispin
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Boswell, Tim
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Loughton, Tim


Brady, Graham
Luff, Peter


Brazier, Julian
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Browning, Mrs Angela
MacKay, Andrew


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Burns, Simon
McLoughlin, Patrick


Butterfill, John
Madel, Sir David


Cash, William
Malins, Humfrey


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Maples, John


(Chipping Barnet)
Mates, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Clappison, James
May, Mrs Theresa


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
 Moss, Malcolm


(Rushcliffe)
Nicholls, Patrick


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Norman, Archie


Colvin, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Cran, James
Paice, James


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Day, Stephen
Pickles, Eric


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Prior, David


Duncan, Alan
Randall, John


Duncan Smith, Iain
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Faber, David
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fallon, Michael
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Flight, Howard
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Ruffley, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fraser, Christopher
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gale, Roger
Shepherd, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gibb, Nick
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Gill, Christopher
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Spicer, Sir Michael


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Spring, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Streeter, Gary


Green, Damian
Swayne, Desmond


Greenway, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Grieve, Dominic
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Thompson, William


Hammond, Philip
Tredinnick, David


Hawkins, Nick
Trend, Michael


Hayes, John
Tyrie, Andrew


Heald, Oliver
Viggers, Peter


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Wardle, Charles


Horam, John
Wells, Bowen


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Whittingdale, John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Hunter, Andrew
Willetts, David


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Woodward, Shaun


Jenkin, Bernard
Yeo, Tim


Johnson Smith,
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey



Key, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Mr. Tim Collins and


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Mr. Nigel Waterson.






NOES


Ainger, Nick
Edwards, Huw


Alexander, Douglas
Efford, Clive


Allan, Richard
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Allen, Graham
Fatchett, Derek


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Ashton, Joe
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Ballard, Jackie
Flynn, Paul


Banks, Tony
Follett, Barbara


Barron, Kevin
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bayley, Hugh
Fyfe, Maria


Beard, Nigel
Galloway, George


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Gapes, Mike


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Gardiner, Barry


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Gerrard, Neil


Best, Harold
Gibson, Dr Ian


Blears, Ms Hazel
Godsiff, Roger


Boateng, Paul
Goggins, Paul


Borrow, David
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Gorrie, Donald


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Grant, Bernie


Brake, Tom
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Grogan, John


Browne, Desmond
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hancock, Mike


Buck, Ms Karen
Hanson, David


Burden, Richard
Harris, Dr Evan


Burgon, Colin
Harvey, Nick


Burstow, Paul
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Butler, Mrs Christine
Healey, John


Byers, Stephen
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Heppell, John


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Hesford, Stephen


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hoon, Geoffrey


Canavan, Dennis
Hope, Phil


Casale, Roger
Hopkins, Kelvin


Caton, Martin
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cawsey, Ian
Howells, Dr Kim


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hughes, Ms Beverley Stretford)


Chaytor, David
Humble, Mrs Joan


Chidgey, David
Hurst, Alan


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hutton, John


Church, Ms Judith
Iddon, Dr Brian


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Ingram, Adam


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Jamieson, David


Clelland, David
Jenkins, Brian


Clwyd, Ann
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Coffey, Ms Ann
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Coleman, Iain
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Colman, Tony
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Cooper, Yvette
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Cotter, Brian
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cousins, Jim
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cox, Tom
Keeble, Ms Sally

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Kemp, Fraser


Cummings, John
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Khabra, Piara S


Darvill, Keith
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Kingham, Ms Tess


Dismore, Andrew
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Donohoe, Brian H
Leslie, Christopher


Doran, Frank
Levitt, Tom


Dowd, Jim
Linton, Martin


Drew, David
Livingstone, Ken





Llwyd, Elfyn
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lock, David
Rogers, Allan


Love, Andrew
Rooker, Jeff


McAllion, John
Rooney, Terry


McAvoy, Thomas
Roy, Frank


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ruane, Chris


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McDonnell, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McFall, John
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sanders, Adrian


McIsaac, Shona
Savidge, Malcolm


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sawford, Phil


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sedgemore, Brian


McNamara, Kevin
Sheerman, Barry


McNulty, Tony
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Skinner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Mandelson, Peter
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Soley, Clive


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Southworth, Ms Helen


Martlew, Eric
Squire, Ms Rachel


Maxton, John
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Meale, Alan
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Merron, Gillian
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Michael, Alun
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Stunell, Andrew


Milburn, Alan
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Miller, Andrew
(Dewsbury)


Mitchell, Austin
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Moffatt, Laura
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Morley, Elliot
Tipping, Paddy


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Todd, Mark


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Mudie, George
Touhig, Don


Mullin, Chris
Truswell, Paul


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Norris, Dan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Tyler, Paul


Olner, Bill
Walley, Ms Joan


Organ, Mrs Diana
Ward, Ms Claire


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Wareing, Robert N


Pearson, Ian
Watts, David


Perham, Ms Linda
White, Brian


Pickthall, Colin
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Pike, Peter L
Wicks, Malcolm


Plaskitt, James
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Pollard, Kerry
(Swansea W)


Pond, Chris
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Pope, Greg
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Pound, Stephen
Willis, Phil


Powell, Sir Raymond
Wills, Michael


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Winnick, David


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Primarolo, Dawn
Woolas, phil


Prosser, Gwyn
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Prosser, Gwyn
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Radice, Giles
Wyatt, Derek


Raynsford, Nick



Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Tellers for the Noes:


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Rendel, David
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I rise to oppose the Question, That clause 3 stand part of the Bill. Many hon. Members
will have noticed that this is the heart of the Bill, as is shown by the fact—if my counting is correct—that 52 amendments have been tabled to clause 3 and 15 amendments to the rest of the Bill.
The controversy in the Committee between the representatives from Northern Ireland and the Government relates to pledges made and broken because they could not be delivered. The Prime Minister came to Northern Ireland because he wanted success in the referendum. He knew that the position was difficult. Like the Prime Minister, my party and others had before us the statistics from investigations in Northern Ireland carried out by spin doctors on his behalf. The Prime Minister saw that the life of the yes campaign was haemorrhaging away so he decided that something must urgently be done. He attempted to take action at Balmoral. He then wrote the graffiti on the wall and succeeded that time in getting what he wanted. Some hon. Members think that the majority of Unionists voted yes; they did not. We must wait until 25 June to find out how many people will vote for candidates who are opposed to the agreement.
The main issue is decommissioning. I do not know why, but the Tory party has become strong on that issue. I am not convinced that it has been down any Damascus road and been converted, but, as a representative from Northern Ireland, I am amazed when the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), comes on "Good Morning Ulster" and tells of the great fight that he is putting up in the House to ensure that the pledges are fulfilled. I had a look at the amendment that the Tory party tabled and I could see in it no mention of linking decommissioning with the release of prisoners. I found it rather strange that the Tories did not attempt to write into the Bill what they claimed the Prime Minister had said. I wonder why not? I have asked them and they will not tell me.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) just laughs, as he laughed when he was in Northern Ireland as a Minister. The people of my constituency are under a great obligation to him, because he gave us a hospital—the Causeway hospital—that no other Minister would have given us. I visited it just the other day, and it is going up by leaps and bounds. Some day, if the Secretary of State survives, and if I survive, we shall perhaps stand together in that hospital to see it completed—although I hope not to need a bed there. So my constituents thank the Tory Front-Bench spokesman for what he did; and although he smiles, in his heart he knows that he has made no progress today. The Government have said no to him. Will he then vote against Third Reading? That might embarrass his hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson)— I do not know, but it will be interesting to see what happens.
We have already discussed these matters for a long time this evening. I do not intend to plough and harrow the field again, or to sow the corn again. Everyone knows what is at stake. The fact remains that Northern Ireland Members have no option but to vote against clause 3.

Mr. Hunter: I share the concern of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) about clause 3. The Opposition also shared his anxieties in the shape of

amendments Nos. 1 and 5, which we pressed to a Division. I hope that, when speaking to my amendments, I did not incur the hon. Gentleman's wrath—

Rev. Ian Paisley: Not at all.

Mr. Hunter: That is a great relief to me—I would not survive long in a debate with the hon. Gentleman.
I should like to raise again a point made during the debate on amendment No. 5 to which, owing to the shortage of time, the Secretary of State did not reply. The point was also raised on Second Reading. It relates to an argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) expressed very clearly. There could be a conflict between the working of the PTA and the working of this Bill. The criteria in the two measures governing whether an organisation may be deemed to be a terrorist organisation are not necessarily the same. Last Wednesday, the hon. Member for Lagan Valley said:
The Secretary of State told us that she will not be removing the IRA, the UVF and the UDA from the list of proscribed organisations because she still regards them as terrorist organisations."—[Official Report, 10 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 1130.]
This point, as I say, has been made several times by several hon. Members, and I would hope now for an answer to it.

Mr. Maclean: I oppose clause 3 because the Government have not accepted any of the substantial amendments on decommissioning proposed to it. In the previous debate, the Secretary of State spoke at length about confidence measures among all parties. How can we have any such confidence when we can have no confidence in the word of the British Prime Minister, given in the House and in Northern Ireland? What he said has not materialised in the Bill.
I was in the House when the Prime Minister made his statement on 6 May; along with many other right hon. and hon. Members, I heard what he said—it is recorded in Hansard. I do not recall any sharp intake of breath in any quarter of the House as if to say that the Prime Minister had exceeded his brief, or had rewritten the Good Friday agreement, or had overstepped the mark. Indeed, I read no editorials or other learned articles the next day suggesting that the Prime Minister had got it wrong. All the press comment was to the effect that the Prime Minister had given a sensible and perfectly valid interpretation, filling in some details of the agreement, when he agreed with the Leader of the Opposition on decommissioning a substantial number of weapons.
What has changed in the past few weeks? Why do the Government now deny what clearly appeared to be the Prime Minister's intentions? What has changed to make the Government come up with this feeble and rather grubby line of argument? They say that adopting what the Prime Minister promised the House amounts to rewriting the agreement—that is the Government's excuse tonight. To accept any amendments, they claim, would be to rewrite the agreement.
8.45 pm
It was not regarded as rewriting the agreement when the Prime Minister said these things in the House and in Northern Ireland. Are we seriously being asked to believe that the notes meticulously prepared for the Prime


Minister before Question Time by the excellent civil servants in the NIO, the Cabinet Office, the Prime Minister's office and possibly the Home Office did not include a line to take on the Good Friday agreement, or did not warn the Prime Minister of what it was possible to say and promise and what it was impossible to say because of the danger of Sinn Fein-IRA or other parties walking out of the talks? That would be stretching belief too far. No, the Prime Minister had a clear brief on what he could say within the spirit of the agreement that would be perfectly feasible and defensible, and which could be brought before the House in the form of enforceable legislation. He clearly had the same in mind when he made his promise at the Dispatch Box and when he toured Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hunter: The media, especially the newspapers in Northern Ireland, unequivocally reported that the Prime Minister had made a direct link between early release and participation in the Executive. They also reported that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) had said that the Prime Minister promised plain and direct legislation making the same link. The Northern Ireland Office must have been aware of the media reports, yet issued no denial.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right: we all knew what was happening. Many of us took the Prime Minister at his word—although we may have learnt better now. Tonight may go down as a watershed, not as regards Northern Ireland, but as regards the Prime Minister. Even the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) knows that the Prime Minister's interpretation was within the spirit of the agreement, but his advice to his party this evening was to ignore what the Prime Minister said because it would not be helpful. I say that what the Prime Minister said was helpful, and that we are entitled to take the word of a British Prime Minister, especially when it is entirely consistent with the Good Friday agreement.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is not the first time a British Prime Minister has used words genuinely that have been believed by all, only to have the Northern Ireland Office turn those words around?

Mr. Maclean: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. No doubt he will have evidence for that, but not much immediately comes to mind. I suspect that, in all these things, our memories are often short-lived or highly selective. However, the memory that I am recalling tonight is that of 6 May. Ulster Unionist Members and Democratic Unionist Members will have clear memories of the Prime Minister visiting Northern Ireland, and of the reports in the Northern Ireland press.
Again, I ask the Government to produce any information or any press reports that suggested, after the Prime Minister made speeches in Northern Ireland or a speech in the House, that he had got it wrong—that he had exceeded his brief, that he had rewritten the agreement or that he had overstepped the mark. Of course there were no such reports, not only because Government spin doctors were at work, but because most people, including Opposition Members—including me—believed that the

Prime Minister's interpretation was perfectly correct. It was perfectly correct, in the spirit of the agreement, to link the release of prisoners with substantial decommissioning. I do not recall thinking at the time, "Goodness me, he has got that wrong, but it is a jolly good thing." Of course no one thought that the Prime Minister had got it wrong; we all thought that, in interpreting the agreement, he had got it right. Tonight's tragedy is that the Government have produced a Bill that does not carry that promise into law.
I find it extraordinary that we are in this position—a position which has undermined the Prime Minister's credibility on this issue, and may undermine his credibility on others. If we are to have peace in Northern Ireland, it must—as the Secretary of State repeatedly said—be built on confidence on all sides. How can we have confidence in the terrorist organisations concluding their part of the bargain if we cannot have confidence in the British Prime Minister honouring his?

Marjorie Mowlam: Is the right hon. Gentleman comparing the British Prime Minister to a terrorist organisation?

Mr. Maclean: No; the reverse. That is the point that I am making to the right hon. Lady. How can we have confidence in terrorist organisations when the word of the person whom we should have confidence in—the British Prime Minister—is not being embodied by the right hon. Lady in her legislation? She is making the opposite point to the one that I was endeavouring to make.
I trusted the word of the Prime Minister when he gave it in the House on 6 May. Nearly everyone did so—the people of Northern Ireland, the British press and, probably, every Opposition Member. I again ask the Secretary of State and the British Government to produce evidence from the press on the following day or to produce evidence from the Northern Ireland press showing that people thought that the Prime Minister was being disingenuous when he made his comment. We all believed it to be correct. What we believed to be correct then—a correct interpretation of the agreement, and a perfectly legitimate drafting of the legislation, linking decommissioning and the release of prisoners—has not been carried into the Bill. Why?
I ask the Government: what has changed? Is it a new threat from Sinn Fein-IRA or Ulster Defence Association terrorists? What has changed to make the Government backtrack on what the Prime Minister solemnly promised the House and the people of Northern Ireland?
A peace deal that is built on conning the public will not succeed. I say again to the Secretary of State that if we cannot convince the legitimate, law-abiding parties standing for election in Northern Ireland that the Prime Minister's word is to be trusted, how can we expect the terrorist organisations—people whom we do not trust to begin with—to honour the commitment to the spirit of the agreement, when it is open to them to turn round and say, "Ah, but the British Prime Minister did not honour the spirit of it either"?

Mr. Willis: Considering that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office—

Rev. Martin Smyth: He was not a Northern Ireland Office Minister.

Mr. Willis: My apologies to the right hon. Gentleman; he was a Home Office Minister. However, I still find his remarks on clause 3, which is an important part of the Bill, very sad indeed.
In May, whether the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and other hon. Members on the Ulster Unionist Bench and the Democratic Unionist Bench agree with it or not, 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland voted in favour of the Northern Ireland agreement. They voted for the agreement set out in the document that I am holding; they did not vote for what the Prime Minister may or may not have said.
Every member of the public of Northern Ireland of voting age had a copy of the agreement. They were entitled to discuss it, and every Member of the House clearly understood that the referendum took place on the basis of that agreement. It was on the basis of that agreement that 71 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland voted in favour, and they sent a clear message to politicians on both sides of the House that they wanted the spirit of the agreement to be enacted in legislation, so that the peace process could move forward. That was the reality.
The agreement is not a legal document as such. It is not something that lawyers could pore over, to question every word, cross every "t" and dot every "i". The people who sat around the table—the people who, for two years, talked and talked and talked while other hon. Members absented themselves from those talks—were the people who made the agreement, and it was they who decided, at the end of the day, that they wanted those principles to be enacted. The agreement is an act of faith, and the people of Northern Ireland will not forgive hon. Members if they decide to nit-pick over its bones instead of dealing with some of its substance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nit-pick?"] There were clearly two major issues—

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. There can be only one contribution at a time. Mr. Phyllis? Mr. Willis.

Mr. Willis: Mr. Willis is even better, Mr. Martin. My kids all used to say that at school, by the way. I agree that there was a lot of noise; it was like being at the Tunisia-England match.
As has rightly been said, two major issues were facing the process as it moved forward: decommissioning and prisons. If it had been necessary to produce a Bill that was so precise that every word of every clause needed to be debated, it would never have passed through the House and the whole process would have died. Those hon. Members who, tonight, want that to happen, have made their arguments very clearly indeed. Their hidden agenda has nothing to do with carrying forward the spirit of the agreement; they are basically asking, "How can we wreck this?"
It is very sad that the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) tabled and voted on amendments that were obviously at the margins, because the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) is absolutely right: the amendments, especially amendment No. 1, would not

achieve the official Opposition's stated aim—to enshrine in legislation the link between decommissioning and the release of prisoners. The editorial in The Times may agree with Front-Bench Members of the official Opposition that those were not wrecking amendments, but many Members and many people in Northern Ireland will see them as wrecking.

Mr. Moss: If the hon. Gentleman reads amendment No. 1 carefully, he will see that it contains a phrase taken from the section on prisoners on page 25 of the agreement. That relates to maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. Amendment No. 1 takes from the section on decommissioning a similar form of words. We have not rewritten the agreement at all.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is trying to wreck the agreement by default, but he is not doing it as clearly as the hon. Member for North Antrim and his party would like him to do it.
The attack on the Prime Minister tonight is shameful, but if the Opposition wanted to make a clear link between decommissioning and the release of prisoners, they should have tabled an amendment honestly. Instead, they are tinkering at the edges and addressing a different audience, who will not thank them if the process starts to go off the rails.
It is clear that when the Prime Minister went to Northern Ireland, the yes vote was flagging. His speech at Balmoral, which was his interpretation of the agreement, is a striking example of what happens when one tries to interpret a document such as the Belfast agreement. If there is a lesson to be learned, it is the need to ensure that that document in its entirety forms the basis of the peace deal in Northern Ireland. We support it, and we shall support the Government if there is a Division on clause stand part.

9 pm

Mr. William Ross: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), and it is a pleasure to follow him. You have no idea, Mr. Martin, how great a pleasure it is to follow him. He is one of the best hands at digging holes with a JCB whom I have ever met in my life. He told us that the Bill was the Prime Minister's interpretation of the agreement, but, in the light of what has been said this evening, it is not the interpretation of the Government Front Bench, is it? That is a different kettle of fish. The entire debate has focused on that point, and the election in Northern Ireland will ultimately be fought and decided on the same point.

Mr. Ingram: Politicking.

Mr. Ross: I am not politicking. I am not even standing in the election, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. I am not a member of the party of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), which the hon. Gentleman should also know. Perhaps his education is not yet complete.
We were told that there had to be an unequivocal ceasefire. That is what the Bill states, and it seems to follow on from the cessation of violence—a term which


was so beloved of the IRA leadership after the first ceasefire: just a cessation of violence, not a cessation of all violence.
I am sure that every day a list of the violent incidents that have taken place overnight in Northern Ireland is handed to the Secretary of State and her Ministers. They know that scarcely a night goes by without violent assaults. Some may be drug related and some just the private settling of scores, but many are paramilitary in nature. There is not a complete cessation of violence. Those carrying out the assaults may not be the Provisional IRA—they are just the subcontractors, but they spring from the same evil well.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said that the Prime Minister had one interpretation of the agreement. The Prime Minister may have a commitment to substantial decommissioning of weapons, which include not just guns but explosives, anti-aircraft missiles and so on. One would have thought that the Prime Minister was well aware of what was in an agreement to which he had put his name, and what was in the Bill when it was being printed. I am sure that he was consulted and that his advisers told him what it meant. However, whenever the Prime Minister insists that he has to fulfil his undertakings, we are told that he is rewriting the agreement. That is said not only by hon. Members from different parties on this Bench, but by a leading member of his own party who is an apologist in the House for the nationalist viewpoint, the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).
We are told also that there are new preconditions. That is the language used by Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness. We are told that they and others are not fulfilling the spirit of the agreement. Judging from what I have heard today, the agreement appears to have half a dozen different spirits that say different things. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough got it right on at least one issue when he said that it is the words in the agreement that count. That is exactly what the republican movement, the IRA-Sinn Fein spokesmen and nationalist Members in this place have said time after time. However, the people of Northern Ireland were given a completely different view of the issue: they thought that their concern had been laid to rest by the words of the Prime Minister, but clearly it has not.
Those of us who live in Northern Ireland know that whenever IRA-Sinn Fein have looked at any Government statement, they have taken it away and scrutinised it, not so much line by line as word by word. They have analysed every statement down to the last dotted "i" and crossed "t" in an effort to determine not only what it meant but all the possible meanings. That is what they did with this agreement, which is why they were able to tell their people that it was a good agreement for Irish nationalism, and that they should vote for it.
I believe that many people in Northern Ireland were misled, but that the scales are now falling from their eyes. By trying to push something that was not so and giving a false impression to the people of Northern Ireland, we have not created a better situation: we have created a situation that is not inherently but certainly far worse than

that which we faced three months ago. We shall live to regret this Bill, just as we shall live to regret this agreement—of that I have no doubt whatsoever.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I think that all hon. Members would agree that this clause goes to the heart of the Bill.

Marjorie Mowlam: It is a shame that the hon. Member was not here earlier.

Mr. Howarth: I have not been in the Chamber throughout, but I have been present for a fair part of the Committee's consideration of the Bill. Perhaps the Secretary of State might do me the courtesy of correcting her comment—but there is no point in arguing about who was here when.
The point is that the clause goes to the heart of the Bill. So far as the British people are concerned, the linkage between the release of terrorists and the decommissioning of weapons is at the heart of the search for peace in Northern Ireland. It is no use the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) saying that we should take a leap of faith and put our trust completely in the good faith of the parties involved. It is not the job of Parliament to legislate on the basis of good faith: it is our job to ensure that we pass legislation that gives clear guidance to the people of this country and to the courts in the interpretation of the law. That is what we must achieve.
There is no doubt—I hope the Secretary of State will acknowledge it—that the peace process in which she, the Government and the parties were involved was in serious threat of being derailed. As hon. Members—particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)—have pointed out, the Prime Minister's personal intervention and his assurances to the law-abiding majority in Northern Ireland that there would be a linkage between the decommissioning of weapons and the release of prisoners led to the referendum result in which the people of Northern Ireland endorsed the agreement by a substantial margin.
As we now examine the details, we are being invited to discard the Prime Minister's commitment to the people and to return to and rely on the agreement itself—which is essentially an act of faith. It is galling to the people of Britain to see those who wish to take part in the democratic process in Northern Ireland holding their convention and welcoming as heroes to that gathering men who had slain in cold blood their fellow citizens who held a contrary view. Some of those terrorists and murderers have murdered friends of mine, and friends of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
I am afraid that we will need more than an assurance that a reliance upon the good faith of those people will be sufficient to persuade us that the Government have put in place a programme that will result in the decommissioning of weapons—the condition whereby most people in the country will accept something that is otherwise unpalatable to them: the release of those who have perpetrated crimes of despicable violence.
The Secretary of State needs to understand that there appears to us to be a lack of clear linkage between not


only the agreement and the Prime Minister's words, but between the agreement and the Bill. The agreement refers to the parties confirming
their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission, and to use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement in referendums North and South of the agreement and in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement.
In other words, within two years, that decommissioning must have taken place.
The Bill does not say that that process will get under way. We require the kind of linkage proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), or the even more specific proposal in amendment No. 28, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border. He has suggested that in addition to the four conditions in the Bill, there should be a fifth and a sixth. The fifth is that the terrorist organisation to which a prisoner belongs has substantially decommissioned weapons. If the Government wish to reassure the British people that there is a clear linkage, I do not see why they have a problem with that—or why they have resisted the amendments.
The Government have made it clear that there is a specific requirement that the release of prisoners will coincide with the actual decommissioning of weapons. If those weapons are not decommissioned, it may be that the organisations that currently hold them will wish to renounce violence. However, there is a severe risk that those weapons will fall into the hands of others who do not belong to any current organisation. New organisations will be created in place of those who have caused torment and tyranny in Northern Ireland for the past generation.
The only answer is for the Secretary of State to come to the House with proposals that will result in the removal and destruction of those weapons. Unless they are destroyed, I can assure her that there will not be peace.

Mr. Peter Robinson: When the Belfast agreement was signed by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland, it was judged to have been a great achievement—until it became apparent that it was being interpreted in different ways by almost everybody who had signed up to it. Each of them was able to go back to their constituencies and argue that the agreement meant this, that or the other.
Until this moment, it was not possible to have any independent adjudication of whose story was accurate and who had properly interpreted the agreement. Sooner or later, there had to be a moment when the arrangements within the agreement were brought into legislation.
The Bill is but the first example of that, and, given the dramatic U-turn by the Prime Minister in relation to his commitments to the people of Northern Ireland on the linking of prior decommissioning and the release of terrorist prisoners, it can hardly be a surprise to any hon. Member that he has decided that it would be appropriate to leave until after the assembly elections are out of the way the publication of the settlement Bill, which will give effect—or, perhaps, will not give effect—to his other pledges to the people of Northern Ireland. I warn the people of Northern Ireland that just as the Prime Minister has welshed on the promises relating to the Bill, he will welsh on the promises relating to the settlement Bill.
9.15 pm
The Prime Minister made two commitments to the people of Northern Ireland on the Bill. We have dealt with one, in respect of the prior decommissioning requirement, to a considerable extent, but there was another: the fifth of his handwritten pledges—that prisoners would be kept in unless violence was given up for good. It is unfortunate that our amendment No. 39 was not chosen for debate, because it included the permanency of the arrangement as a factor to be taken into account. I pointed out on Second Reading that a complete ceasefire is, and has proved to be, very different from a permanent ceasefire. The IRA called a complete cessation of its violence before Canary Wharf, but it was not a permanent cessation, as Canary Wharf, Manchester, Thiepval barracks and a number of other atrocities clearly showed.
The Prime Minister has not kept those commitments. There is no permanency about the requirement for a ceasefire in the Bill, and many people in Northern Ireland will already be realising that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and Northern Ireland Office Ministers were happy for the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the Belfast News Letter, the Belfast Telegraph, the BBC and Ulster Television to retail those commitments to the people of Northern Ireland as a firm, concrete assurance that there would be decommissioning before any prisoner releases. There was not a word of objection from the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister to those undertakings being given in that spirit, through the media, to the people of Northern Ireland.
It simply is not good enough for the Liberal Democrat spokesman to say that the Prime Minister noticed that the campaign was flagging and, at the same time, that 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland voted because they had read the agreement, and that their vote was only on the agreement and nothing to do with any assurances that they had been given. How can he say, on the one hand, that the campaign was flagging and, obviously, the Prime Minister was able to bolster it, and, on the other, that the Prime Minister's commitments did not make the difference to the size of the referendum vote? Of course they did. The agreement and the undertakings that the Prime Minister gave cannot be separated.

Mr. Hunter: Following those points, is not it worth recalling that, in May and June, after the general election, the Prime Minister agreed to terms offered by Sinn Fein-IRA for another ceasefire—terms that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) had declined on two occasions? They included the downgrading of the decommissioning issue, in sharp contrast to the Prime Minister's pledges during his visit to Belfast on 14 May?

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman makes his point well. In respect of the clause, the key issue is that the changes would require the "good faith" of the paramilitary organisations up front, before they were given tangible rewards from the agreement. The people of Northern Ireland have the right to know that something is coming from the paramilitary organisations, rather than always having to take them on trust as they get concession after concession from the Government, at the expense of the people of Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State will regret her action tonight. Her refusal to accept amendments that would have fulfilled the promises of her Prime Minister and mine is


a step which she will regret in the days and months ahead. The Bill will stand as a testament of the Prime Minister's broken pledges and the conning of the Northern Ireland electorate. Many will consider that they were deceived into voting yes on assurances given by the Prime Minister about what would happen as a result of the Bill, but which did not occur.

Mr. Donaldson: I very much regret the Government's failure to accept many amendments that have been moved today. Although I want peace, stability and progress in Northern Ireland, a process that is built on the basis of concessions to terrorism with no requirement on terrorists to end violence, dismantle their organisations and decommission their weapons will not deliver real peace.
I predict that the agreement will not deliver peace. The men of violence will pocket the concessions and, when the need arises, will return to violence because the agreement does not require them to end their violence for good. I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). I know from speaking to many people in Northern Ireland that they voted for the agreement on the basis of the Prime Minister's assurances. For the Liberal Democrat spokesman to suggest otherwise shows how little he has been to Northern Ireland and talked to the people. Had he been there more often, he would understand that the Prime Minister's words made a big impact in the campaign. He should at least read the newspapers, which made it clear that the Prime Minister's words had an enormous impact on how the people of Northern Ireland voted on the agreement. Simply to dismiss that by saying, "Oh, but they only voted on the agreement" misses the point completely.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not strange that, on Second Reading, Labour Members freely admitted that the Prime Minister's visits and pledges brought about the majority yes vote?

Mr. Donaldson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment.
We shall not try to hide the fact that once again the Government are fudging the decommissioning issue. We shall not be party to such a fudge. We shall make it clear to the people of Northern Ireland that the Government are fudging the decommissioning issue, just as it was fudged throughout the talks process. The Mitchell report and the report of the international body on decommissioning recommended decommissioning alongside the talks. I participated in those talks, right through to the end. I know what happened, and I know that the Government never pressed for the decommissioning of arms during the talks process. They continually sidelined the issue.
The Liberal Democrat spokesman tells us to have faith, but if it is based on the Government's past actions, and given that they have fudged the decommissioning issue throughout the process, what faith can we have? The ambiguity that surrounds decommissioning and its linkage with the release of prisoners is evidence that it will be fudged once again. The terrorists will not be required to decommission, and prisoners will be released this summer. They will walk onto the streets without a single gun, bullet or, to quote Danny Morrison, the rust on the rifles, having been decommissioned.
When the House returns in the autumn after the summer recess and we hear a report from the Secretary of State telling us how many prisoners have been released, I wonder what she will tell the House about the progress of decommissioning. How many rifles will have been handed over? We are told that we must trust the terrorists to deliver on their side of the bargain. This is not an act of faith: it is an Act of Parliament. Parliament has the right to interpret the agreement so as to provide the law of the United Kingdom, because this is the Government and the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Why should we be beholden to terrorist organisations? Why should not the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom determine of its own free will that it will require terrorist organisations to hand in their weapons, and that until they do so their prisoners will stay in prison. Are the Government no longer responsible for prisons?
Surely it is within the Government's capacity to ensure that decommissioning is required, and that it has commenced and is on-going before prisoners are released. The people of Northern Ireland who have suffered at the hands of terrorists will witness terrorist prisoners being released, but no guns will be handed in. Why? Because that is not required by the legislation. That is a huge mistake.
I say to hon. Members who support the agreement that, in the days, months and years ahead, when the process is floundering, they will regret the fact that we did not require the terrorists to deliver peace. If we leave the terrorists to deliver peace of their own free will, it will not happen. We should not provide the carrot and not have the stick. That is the reality when dealing with terrorism. The terrorists will take the carrots as they have always done. They will pocket the concessions, but they will not deliver their side of the bargain.
The House is asking the people of Northern Ireland to trust the Secretary of State to halt the release of prisoners in the course of time, when the guns have not been handed in. Can we rely on the Secretary of State to do that? Will she give us a firm commitment or, dare I say it, a pledge that, if the guns are not being handed in, she, as the person responsible, will halt the release of terrorist prisoners? As she has not accepted our amendments, will she give a pledge to the House and to the people of Northern Ireland that, in the absence of guns being handed in, she will halt the release of terrorist prisoners? I await her answer.

Marjorie Mowlam: I shall try to answer some of the questions that have been put.

Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Lady should answer the last one.

Marjorie Mowlam: It is my choice, and I shall answer the questions as well as I can in the time permitted.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said that we were trying to delay the settlement Bill to prevent the House from seeing what it contains. The hon. Gentleman should pause for a moment and consider the amount of legislation relating to Northern Ireland that we have got through the House in the past year. This is our fifth Bill.
The settlement Bill could not be written before the Good Friday agreement. The parties had to agree to it, and it had to be followed by the referendum on 22 May.


We have had a very short time to draw up that Bill. I should like to pay tribute to the civil servants who have worked hard to get it into the required form so that it can come to the House in time to fulfil the Good Friday agreement promises. We are doing all we can to ensure that we honour what the people of Northern Ireland have, by consent, chosen as the way forward to reach an accommodation with which they can all live. That Bill is being drafted, and we shall get it to the House as soon as we can.
The hon. Members for Belfast, East and for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) questioned whether the words of the agreement addressed the link between decommissioning and the release of prisoners.
Let me read again what is in the agreement. The Bill states:
the Secretary of State shall in particular take into account whether an organisation is committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means to achieve its objectives … has ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or of preparation for violence …is directing or promoting acts of violence committed by other organisations … is co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act".
That clearly establishes a link. It is in line with the words used by the Prime Minister on 16 and 14 May. People asked the Prime Minister to put his words into the Bill, and we have done so.

Mr. William Ross: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Marjorie Mowlam: No. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can either ask me to answer questions, or ask me to spend my time giving way. I shall endeavour to answer the questions.
The hon. Member for Lagan Valley spoke of what he described as the concessions given to paramilitaries. That is not the case; what we are doing is implementing the agreement.

Mr. Donaldson: Is releasing prisoners not a concession?

Marjorie Mowlam: Let me say this. Accelerated prisoner releases are part of the agreement. As the hon. Gentleman knows better than many hon. Members, the agreement contains a number of sections —on a devolved assembly, a north-south ministerial council, accelerated release of prisoners, a review of the police, and the need for a commission to consider the best way forward. It also contains a number of elements relating to equality and human rights, and recommends the establishment of an equality commission.
We have said all along that people cannot cherry-pick. They cannot choose only the bits they like; everyone must sign up to the whole thing. That is what happened. Obviously there are parts that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley finds it difficult to accept, and I understand and respect his feelings, but, as I have said, we cannot accept the bits we like and reject the bits we do not like, and hope that it will succeed. Progress will be made only if, on the basis of the agreement, confidence can be established that everyone will get some of what they want, and no one will get 100 per cent. of what they want.
This is not about prejudging the situation, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. Of course trust needs to be created, but there is a link: the Prime Minister's words have been put into the Bill, as we have said they would be, and to describe the position otherwise is to misrepresent it —as the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) tried to do.
The Prime Minister said very clearly that he would put his words into the Bill, and we have done that. It is outrageous to suggest that the Prime Minister has done otherwise. [Interruption.] You Opposition Members may interpret the position differently. I ask you to read what was said on 16 May.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The right hon. Lady should not involve me in the argument.

Marjorie Mowlam: I apologise, Mr. Martin.
Let us look at what the Prime Minister said on 16 and 14 May, and compare it with the Bill. Judging from what Opposition Members have said, I do not think that they have done that, but I tell them that the words are there. It is wrong to suggest that the Prime Minister has failed to keep his promises on Northern Ireland. In his written pledge to the people of Northern Ireland, he said:
No prisoners released unless violence has been given up for good.
As I explained earlier, that is the fundamental test underlying the agreement. It is reflected in the need for a complete and unequivocal ceasefire that is set out in the clause.
Those who said that the Prime Minister had swung the referendum vote were probably right. I do not doubt that he increased the yes vote: his 14 May speech in Belfast marked a crucial turning point. Opposition Members suggested that that made all the difference, but the vote was positive anyway. To suggest that the Prime Minister's speech was the overwhelming criterion is unrealistic. Unfortunately, some hon. Members seem not to have read the speech in detail. Far from departing from it or fudging it, the Government have taken care to reflect clearly and directly the exact terms of its undertakings.
I have here a copy of the Prime Minister's speech. Opposition Members quoted from it, and I have been trying to find the parts that they quoted, but I do not think that their remarks reflected in any way what the Prime Minister said. He said:
In clarifying whether the terms and spirit of the agreement are being met and whether violence is genuinely given up for good, there are a range of factors to be taken into account.
Those factors are listed in the Bill: the Prime Minister's words are in the Bill. His four factors included full co-operation …

Mr. Moss: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Marjorie Mowlam: No. I have told other hon. Members that I want to answer the questions that have been asked. The hon. Gentleman could have spoken earlier, but obviously chose not to do so.
The Prime Minister's four factors included full co-operation with the independent commission on decommissioning to implement the agreement's provisions.

Mr. Moss: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Marjorie Mowlam: No. I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I am not giving way.

Mr. Moss: I shall remember that the Minister did not let me in.

Marjorie Mowlam: It is depressing that the hon. Gentleman finds it necessary to issue threats. I shall not give way.
The Prime Minister's first factor —full co-operation with the independent commission on decommissioning to implement the agreement's provisions—is reflected in clause 3(9)(d).
The hon. Member for Basingstoke asked about the relationship between proscription and specifying organisations in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) has said, proscription is concerned with the purposes of an organisation, and the Bill is concerned with the adequacy of the ceasefire. There is no conflict between those definitions.
The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) spoke movingly about the victims of the troubles. I know the hon. Gentleman's background, and I understand his feelings on the issue. We have visited, known or had experience of families who have suffered as a result of the troubles. But nobody has a monopoly on suffering; in last week's debate suffering was almost traded, and that was rather distasteful. The Good Friday agreement has the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, and it is an attempt to ensure that no more of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the forces, or people in Northern Ireland, will have to go through such pain.
We have a chance to make the agreement work, but many hon. Members think that it will not. It is the best chance we have had for many years for a settlement in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Aldershot spoke about the violence of splinter groups. I agree that there is such violence, that it is disruptive, and that those groups want to destroy the peace process. The one way in which we can make sure that they do not is to keep up security, because the Government's first job is to protect the people of Northern Ireland. I guarantee that that will continue, but we must also show that there is an alternative way forward.
There must be accommodation and discussion, and the agreement is the first step in that direction. I do not say that we have arrived, because there is much building to be done, and confidence and trust to be put in place, but I hope that the agreement will enable people to take a positive step in the right direction.
The hon. Member for Aldershot also said several times that the Prime Minister's comments on 6 May and 14 May are not in the Bill, as did the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). They tried to

portray the Prime Minister as having been less than honest, and to say that he had deceived people. They should look at his speeches, at what is in the Bill, and at the commitment that he has put into getting the process to where it is. This is an attempt to make political capital out of the situation rather than change it. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may say that that is not the case, but that is what it feels like.

Mr. Moss: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Marjorie Mowlam: Let me finish the point; then I shall certainly give way.
I have no desire to fall out with the Opposition. In opposition, I was clear that bipartisanship made a difference. It helped no end as we worked together. Despite the aggression that has often come from Conservative Members, I hope that we can have our differences on this even though we fundamentally agree that it is the way forward, and try to move the process forward. I hope that that is possible.

Mr. Moss: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. I have a simple question. In clause 3, the Government have attempted to define a terrorist organisation. Our amendment No. (d) uses the words
is committed to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations and the achievement of the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms … by 22nd May 2000.
How does that differ fundamentally from the words in the agreement on decommissioning:
All participants accordingly reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations … to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years"?
That is 22 May 2000.

Marjorie Mowlam: We are not going to get very far by reading parts of the Bill to each other. We have faithfully represented in the Bill the agreement that was signed and the comments that the Prime Minister made. Opposition Members can try to imply differently, but we have acted in good faith in the Bill, in line with the reassurances that the Prime Minister gave on the agreement. That is why we have not accepted the amendments.

Mr. Winnick: My right hon. Friend said that she wants to work with the Opposition. Does she remember the many occasions when we were in opposition when we could have made mileage out of the Government's position, such as when they were conducting contacts with the IRA without any ceasefire? We refused to do that, because we believed that Government and Opposition should work together in the interests of Northern Ireland. Should not they learn that lesson?

Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend. I agree. I am trying tonight not to indulge in what some sections of the Opposition want us to do: to show a difference. I said "some sections", because I do not believe that my discussions with those on the Opposition Front Bench are fully played out by Back-Bench Members. That, I think, is the situation. I have avoided pointing out the contradictions with what has happened in the past, because I want to look to the future in Northern Ireland, not live in the past.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 221, Noes 10.

Division No. 303]
[9.43 pm

AYES


Ainger, Nick
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Allan, Richard
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Gerrard, Neil


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Gibson, Dr Ian


Ashton, Joe
Godsiff, Roger


Ballard, Jackie
Goggins, Paul


Banks, Tony
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Barron, Kevin
Gorrie, Donald


Bayley, Hugh
Grant, Bernie


Beard, Nigel
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Grogan, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Best, Harold
Hancock, Mike


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Hanson, David


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Harris, Dr Evan


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Harvey, Nick


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Browne, Desmond
Healey, John


Buck, Ms Karen
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Burden, Richard
Heppell, John


Burgon, Colin
Hesford, Stephen


Burstow, Paul
Hoon, Geoffrey


Butler, Mrs Christine
Hope, Phil


Byers, Stephen
Howells, Dr Kim


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Hurst, Alan


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hutton, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Iddon, Dr Brian


Canavan, Dennis
Ingram, Adam


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Chaytor, David
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Chidgey, David
Jamieson, David


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jenkins, Brian


Church, Ms Judith
Johnson, Miss Melanie


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Clelland, David
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Clwyd, Ann
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Coleman, Iain
Keeble, Ms Sally


Colman, Tony
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cooper, Yvette
Kemp, Fraser


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Cotter, Brian
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Cousins, Jim
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Cox, Tom
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Leslie, Christopher


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Levitt, Tom


Cummings, John
Llwyd, Elfyn


Darvill, Keith
Love, Andrew


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McAvoy, Thomas


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Dismore, Andrew
McDonnell, John


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
McFall, John


Donohoe, Brian H
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Dowd, Jim
McIsaac, Shona


Drew, David
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Edwards, Huw
Mackinlay, Andrew


Efford, Clive
McNamara, Kevin


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McNulty, Tony


Fearn, Ronnie
Mactaggart, Fiona


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McWalter, Tony


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McWilliam, John


Flynn, Paul
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Follett, Barbara
Mallaber, Judy


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gapes, Mike
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Gardiner, Barry
Martlew, Eric





Maxton, John
Savidge, Malcolm


Meale, Alan
Sawford, Phil


Merron, Gillian
Sedgemore, Brian


Michael, Alun
Sheerman, Barry


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Skinner, Dennis


Milburn, Alan
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Mitchell, Austin
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Soley, Clive


Moran, Ms Margaret
Squire, Ms Rachel


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mudie, George
Stunell, Andrew


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
(Dewsbury)


Norris, Dan
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Olner, Bill
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Tipping, Paddy


Pearson, Ian
Todd, Mark


Perham, Ms Linda
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Pickthall, Colin
Touhig, Don


Pike, Peter L
Truswell, Paul


Plaskitt, James
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pond, Chris
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Pope, Greg
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pound, Stephen
Tyler, Paul


Powell, Sir Raymond
Ward, Ms Claire


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wareing, Robert N


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Watts, David


Prosser, Gwyn
Wicks, Malcolm


Radice, Giles
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Raynsford, Nick
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Willis, Phil


Rendel, David
Winnick, David


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Rooker, Jeff
Woolas, Phil


Rooney, Terry
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Roy, Frank
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Ruane, Chris
Tellers for the Ayes:


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Sanders, Adrian
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.




NOES


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Swayne, Desmond


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Thompson, William


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Wilkinson, John


Hunter, Andrew



Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tellers for the Noes:


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. William Ross and


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Rev. Martin Smyth

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

To report progress and ask leave to sit again.— [Mr. Dowd.]

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 1st June, be approved.

That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 1st June, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to.

AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mr. Tim Collins be discharged from the Agriculture Committee and Mr. David Curry be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

CATERING COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mr. Keith Simpson be discharged from the Catering Committee and Miss Julie Kirkbride be added to the Committee.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

TRADE AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mr. David Prior be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr. John Bercow be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

TREASURY COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That Mr. Quentin Davies be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Mr. Nick Gibb be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Education in Somerset

Jackie Ballard: I should like to present a petition of 679 signatures, collected by my constituent Thomas Marlowe, who attends Halcon primary school in Taunton. The petition says:
The petition of Thomas Marlowe, of 25 Cromwell Road, and 679 other Somerset residents, declares that we support action to end budget cuts to our schools.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons take note of our concerns and urge the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to re-examine provision for education in the Somerset area.
And the petitioners remain, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — EU Structural Funds

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Mr. Gareth Thomas: Hon. Members may feel that it is particularly timely that a Welsh Member should be given the opportunity to raise the important subject of European Union structural funds, when the Council of Ministers is meeting in our capital city of Cardiff, which will soon be home to the National Assembly for Wales, our first ever all-Wales elected body.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will know that there is considerable interest in Agenda 2000 and the review of structural funds, particularly in Wales, and it is not difficult to understand why.
The Welsh economy has undergone enormous structural changes in recent years, with the contraction of the traditional heavy industries of coal and steel. The difficult process of transformation of the Welsh economy has undoubtedly been assisted by European funding in respect of financing infrastructure and other projects.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]

Mr. Thomas: The interest that has been generated in Wales in reforming structural funds is understandable, given the context of economic change which has been very much a feature of life in Wales recently.
There is a positive feeling in Wales towards Europe. It is worth emphasising that there is a great expectation that the help and assistance that deprived areas of Wales have received in recent years will continue well into the next millennium.
I appreciate the fact that the review of structural funds is a sensitive subject, and I acknowledge that the Government, and my hon. Friend the Minister, who represents the lead UK Government Department, are involved in what are no doubt delicate negotiations with our European partners. Given the requirements relating to the size of the EU budget and the financial implications of enlargement, the process of reform is likely to be difficult.
During tonight's short debate, I wish, first, to seek clarification from my hon. Friend on the nature of the review process and the timetable within which Government Departments are working. Secondly, I should like to take the opportunity to put the Welsh case, particularly for objective 1 status—the most valuable funding available from Europe—and to seek assurances that Wales will be dealt with fairly. The Welsh expression "chwarae teg" means fair play, and that is all we are seeking. I have no intention of denigrating the case that has been put on behalf of other regions and nations of the United Kingdom, particularly Cornwall and South Yorkshire.
I acknowledge that the Welsh case has been, and will continue to be, put forcefully by the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
Outside Wales, there is perhaps a perception that we have done well economically in recent years. There have been many well-publicised inward investment projects, but, as those who know the Welsh economy well will vouchsafe, those projects and the bulk of inward investment have been confined to the more prosperous south-eastern and north-eastern regions, leaving behind the western parts of Wales and the old industrial valleys.
The Welsh Development Agency has a high profile and it has done a good job. It is a success story, although inward investment, both foreign and UK-based, has declined in recent years. The impression may have been given that Wales does not need help, but that is not the case. In south-east Wales, particularly in Cardiff, there is increasing economic prosperity and optimism, but that is not true of the areas represented by me and some of my hon. Friends. In west Wales and the valleys, there is severe economic deprivation.

Mrs. Betty Williams: Does my hon. Friend agree that figures recently published by the Welsh Development Agency's international division show that, between 1993 and 1997, not a single job was created by foreign inward investment in the Conwy unitary authority area, which is part of my constituency and, furthermore, UK inward investment created only 18 jobs in that area?
On foreign inward investment, I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that that part of north-west Wales is the worst in Wales and in Europe. I do not think —

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. This is a long intervention, even for an Adjournment debate. That is sufficient.

Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The record on inward investment, particularly in that part of Wales, has been poor and the cause of considerable concern. It gives the lie to the idea that Wales has universally done well out of inward investment. There is a growing east-west divide in Wales. Regions in the east have done better and prospered from inward investment, but that has not percolated through to the more peripheral areas of the west and the valleys—their peripherality is very much a feature of their economy.
The levels of gross domestic product in those unitary authorities are particularly low. I shall not burden hon. Members with too many statistics, but my hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate that, in such a policy area, statistics are unavoidable, particularly bearing in mind the fact that we are dealing with the criteria for objective 1, which requires sub-regions to establish that they have a GDP of less than 75 per cent. of the European average.
According to statistics produced not only by the House of Commons Library, but by the independent source of Cardiff university business school, the sub-region of west Wales and the valleys has a GDP per capita of 68 per cent. of the EU average, which is well within the 75 per cent. threshold, compared with 90 per cent. in eastern Wales. My constituency incorporates much of the unitary authority of Conwy, which has a GDP per capita of 59 per cent. of the EU average. Those are remarkably low figures and show that there is economic difficulty and deprivation in western areas of Wales which, in my respectful submission, should be reflected in a vigorous approach by all Government Departments in pressing for the best available funding from Europe.
There are statistics relating to economic activity. As those who have studied the figures are aware, levels of unemployment in the UK are not necessarily as high as in other European member states. That may reflect how the figures have been compiled in the past, but the figures for economic inactivity show that real unemployment in Wales, especially in my area, is even higher. Economic inactivity rises to about 30 per cent. in some areas, showing that there is great hidden unemployment.
West Wales and the valleys show up poorly on all indices of economic deprivation and poverty. The Welsh Office recently produced a Green Paper entitled "Better Health, Better Wales", revealing that the general and infant mortality rates in Wales are poor:
Within Wales a significant proportion of the population remain deeply disadvantaged in terms of expectation of life and health-related quality of life, and there are wide variations between those with the poorest health and those with the best.
Life expectancy in some parts of the south Wales valleys is about five years less than in other parts of Wales and considerably worse than in other parts of the UK.
It would be apt to refer, in the context of western Wales and the valleys, to the crisis facing rural communities which compounds the problems encountered by these peripheral areas where farming is a crucial part of the rural economy. Farm incomes have declined dramatically in recent years—a factor which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will take into account.
I had the opportunity to put the case for my constituency and for western Wales and the valleys to the President of the European Commission when he came to Wales about three weeks ago, before the summit. Mr. Santer was quite surprised to discover how much we had depended on European funding during the transition from our dependence on declining industries. He was quoted in The Western Mail as saying that, if the right conditions and criteria were met, there was no reason why Wales could not benefit from objective 1 funding. He added that, if the western half of Wales met the criteria for objective 1 status, he could see no reason why the country should not benefit from such funding. I trust, therefore, that the DTI and other relevant Departments will pursue the Welsh case as vigorously as possible.

Mr. Chris Ruane: My hon. Friend has asked for fair play in respect of Wales. Is he aware that, when the structural funds were reviewed last time, under a Conservative Government, a senior British civil servant in Brussels said that north Wales got the rawest deal in Europe?

Mr. Thomas: There is a considerable legacy of disquiet about how that review was conducted. Many commentators in Wales feel that some parts of the country, particularly in the north, were badly dealt with. I am confident that the Government will pursue the interests of all regions of Wales as vigorously as possible.

Ms Jackie Lawrence: My hon. Friend said that farm incomes in Wales had dropped by 43 per cent. Does he agree that Wales faces a dichotomy, in that, although it is incumbent on us to paint a picture of a successful, thriving, enthusiastic region, that presentation can often mask the problems that we have in parts of west Wales—especially my constituency, where


not only have people been affected by the 43 per cent. drop in farm incomes, but our gross domestic product decreased by about 12.5 per cent. under the previous Administration?

Mr. Thomas: I am aware that the position in my hon. Friend's constituency is especially severe. It has a problem of peripherality, which is shared by the other areas that I mentioned—a feature which is unique to Wales—and, as the Welsh Affairs Select Committee said in its recent report, in Wales there has been an imbalance in economic activity and inward investment. Eastern areas of Wales—one wishes them well, and I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) is in the Chamber—have done very well indeed, although perhaps not as well as they could. When we have the National Assembly for Wales, greater prosperity and optimism are to be expected in Wales.
At present, however, there is an imbalance. The wealth that appears to have come to Wales does not go beyond two narrow areas—the A55 corridor, bordering England, in north-east Wales, and the M4 corridor, in south-east Wales. Any objective assessment of the economic data will reveal that the western areas of Wales and the valleys are very badly off indeed, and have GDP levels far below the threshold of 75 per cent. In those circumstances, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will be more than prepared to pursue the case as vigorously as possible.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) on initiating this important debate. I say to him—and to all my hon. Friends who intervened—that we note the important points that have been made.
The debate gives me the opportunity to bring hon. Members on both sides of the House up to date on the specific aspects of the proposed reform of the structural and cohesion funds. This is a good moment to discuss these issues, as we take forward discussion of the draft regulations under the United Kingdom presidency of the European Union. The proposals are also being considered by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry.
Ministers and officials in the Department of Trade and Industry, the lead Department on the funds' reform, liaise closely with colleagues in interested Departments, including the Welsh Office, to co-ordinate UK policy. Administration of structural funds programmes within Wales, and the distribution of funds to them, is the responsibility of the Welsh Office. The DTI has responsibility for the co-ordination of issues that affect the UK as a whole.
It might be helpful to set the present discussions on the structural funds' reform in the wider context of the challenges confronting the European Union. It is no exaggeration to say that this is a critical point in the Union's development, not least because successful enlargement will be vital in ensuring that the Union is ready for the 21st century. The Council of Ministers, meeting in Cardiff today and tomorrow, will discuss, among other matters, Agenda 2000. I congratulate my hon. Friend warmly on his timing.
Reform of the structural funds is one of the most important elements in the process. It is certainly one of the most visible benefits of the European Union to local people. For many people, the EU is manifested through structural funds. That is why it is so important that we get the reform right.
At the informal meeting of EU regional policy Ministers in Glasgow last week, which was chaired by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, there was universal agreement on a number of principles: the importance of job creation and employability, and of regional competitiveness; the value of effective partnership between the Commission, national Governments, and regional and local organisations, and of a clear definition of role for each; and that subsidiarity—that is, decision making as close to the people as possible—should have practical effect. In other words, there should be more regional and local control over the funds' delivery. I know that the agreement on those principles will be welcomed by all hon. Members.
Those points mirror the views that emerged consistently from the local and regional consultations that took place earlier in the year across the UK. The UK-wide consultation exercise was invaluable in gathering views that we could feed into the negotiations. This is an appropriate moment for me to thank all the interested parties who took part. We are grateful for all their contributions.
During our presidency, we have taken the negotiations forward as effectively as possible, given the divergent views across member states on the detail of the proposed regulations. It has been expedient, therefore, to focus discussion on the general regulations that deal with simplifying the administration of the funds. Excessive bureaucracy is one of the aspects that people dislike about the administration of the funds, and we are determined to simplify it as much as possible.
In the consultation exercise, that was an issue close to the hearts of those, particularly on the monitoring committees throughout the country, whose task is to ensure proper administration of the programmes. That is why it is so important for the Government to liaise with those whose job is the practical administration of the funds.
I spoke at the national simplification conference in early May to discuss issues for regional partnerships. Over the past few months, I have corresponded with many hon. Members, and have met a number of Members and their local delegations to discuss structural fund reform. I shall continue to do so to ensure that local views are represented in the on-going discussions.
A key concern for the Government in pressing forward the negotiations under our presidency has been to leave a solid framework for their continuation next month into the Austrian presidency. On issues affecting finance and eligibility criteria, all member states have distinctive views. Most, including the UK, have difficulties with the current proposals. The discussions are likely to take place towards the end of the year and will continue into early 1999.
In the negotiations to date, the UK presidency has been able to secure agreement on some of the general principles that support the universally agreed aim of simplification of the funds, making them more effective and better value


for money. That is an important first step in such a radical reform proposal, and we should not underestimate the scale of the task and of the achievement.
Throughout the negotiations, the Government have kept and will continue to keep in mind one overarching principle, which will become more important as we head into the discussions in the autumn—the principle of fairness. That point has been made repeatedly this evening, and the Government have taken the message. Fairness has dominated the lobbying positions of the Government and local organisations in Brussels with the Commission and with other member states, since the publication of the Agenda 2000 communication.
Fairness means that the costs of reform should be shared fairly between all existing member states. The Government do not believe that the proposals as they stand will achieve this. We believe that if we are to make the funds affordable, all member states must accept cuts. Clearly, that means that no member state should receive more per capita than it does now.
Therefore, we are not prepared to bear disproportionate cuts in United Kingdom coverage. On the strength of our lobbying before publication of the proposals, we secured the last-minute concession of the safety net in the draft regulations that limits to one third loss of coverage for objective 2 and 5b areas. As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, that could prove to be an invaluable achievement for Wales.
We should remember also that that is merely the starting point in a long and complex set of negotiations. There is a great deal more work to be done to achieve fair criteria and transparent systems across all the objectives. For example, we should like to see greater flexibility on

the objective 1 GDP cut-off and the inclusion of a GDP criterion under the new objective 2. We are still some way from the discussions on eligibility criteria and financial issues, and we should certainly not try to prejudge their outcome.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: In adding my support, and my congratulations to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) on securing this debate, I respectfully suggest that there is no question of the west and the valleys of Wales qualifying under all the criteria. I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that this is a cross-party issue and that we fully support the comments of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues this evening.

Mrs. Roche: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am encouraged by the many representations from, and my many discussions with, hon. Members on both sides of the House about this issue. That is a very encouraging part of the process as we pursue this issue that is so important to the United Kingdom.
We are at the beginning of this vital process, and I cannot overstate the importance of pursuing together, in common cause, the best deal for the United Kingdom as a whole. My hon. Friend has done the House a great service in raising this vital policy area tonight. I will ensure that we keep the House fully informed about all the discussions that are taking place.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.